Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Home Energy Conservation Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

INTERPRETATION

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 12, after 'information,' insert 'advice,'.
The amendment takes account of the concern expressed in Committee that it should be clear that an energy conservation authority should be able to give advice to businesses in connection with energy conservation measures.
The hon Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) and members of the Committee were keen to encourage local authorities to work constructively with businesses to assist in energy conservation. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) seemed surprised that Opposition Members were keen for local authorities to work with the private sector. That is indeed a change of tack from their previous policy but one, nevertheless, which should be welcomed.
The enthusiasm that I detected for local authorities and businesses to become partners in that way was noticeable. However, I pointed out in Committee that this did not, in my opinion, require specific mention of businesses on the face of the Bill, since such an inclusion would carry the temptation to cover just about everyone else as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elthain (Mr. Bottomley), with his customary wisdom, suggested that we might consider the use of the words "advice" and "assistance" if they could seen to be adding anything worth while to the amendment that was being considered at the time. My hon. Friend will see that the amendment in my name indeed picks up on part of his observation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), expressed the wish that local authorities should be imaginative about their partnerships, and not just involve the business community. Schools, youth clubs, social clubs and magazines circulated within industry were cited as good examples of the various avenues which local authorities could go down and put to good use in their energy efficiency strategies. That demonstrates that businesses are not the be-all and end-all of partnership approaches in this area, and demonstrates precisely why I was concerned not to single out businesses for a particular mention on the face of the Bill, or to try to produce a

catch-all definition without leaving out any group or organisation. I did not think that was the right approach, and undertook to reconsider.
The short and simple reference to "advice" in the amendment is the best way to take the matter forward. Advice can be directed at anyone an authority chooses.
As was rightly pointed out in Committee, businesses may have an important role in the implementation of energy conservation measures. In relation to our national programmes, businesses are involved in a number of ways, for example as approved contractors carrying out work under the home energy efficiency scheme—HEES—or as manufacturers or retailers participating in special promotions for equipment such as energy-saving light bulbs.
The HEES, of course, is working very well, and is administered for my Department by the Energy Action Grants Agency, EAGA, a private company in Newcastle. The agency approves installation companies to install whatever measures are deemed appropriate for a particular property, and has overall control of some £100 million worth of grants with effect from 1 April this year—a 45 per cent. increase on the current financial year—and will continue to add to the 1 million homes that have already benefited from the scheme in the first three years. I was recently privileged to be able to process the one millionth grant under the scheme, which I was pleased went, by coincidence, to one of my constituents.
The Energy Saving Trust, an independent organisation set up by the Government, British Gas, the 12 regional electricity companies, Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric is managing new programmes to promote the efficient use of energy by domestic and small business users. It has successfully involved businesses, for example, in its low-energy lighting scheme, which resulted in the sale of nearly as many low-energy light bulbs in eight weeks as had been sold the previous year.
Those are just two examples of the type of involvement that local authorities should be encouraging at a local level. Some have combined the enthusiasm of children for caring for the environment with business involvement through a scheme aimed at schoolchildren who were encouraged to persuade their parents to purchase low-energy light bulbs with the help of discounts agreed with the regional electricity company. I am also aware of a local authority that has involved schoolchildren in undertaking a survey of housing stock in its area, with the result being a basic but effective record of the energy efficiency of housing stock in its area.
Adding the word "advice" to the list of things covered by the term "energy conservation measures" in the Bill will ensure that authorities can include advice to businesses—or indeed other organisations which may be relevant in particular local circumstances—in the measures that they list in their reports. Advice may be directed at anyone, and singling out businesses as opposed to other organisations for mention on the face of the Bill might prove unnecessarily restrictive.
There is also no reason why a local authority should not involve businesses in other ways in the implementation of its energy efficiency strategy. As I have already said, help does not necessarily have to be restricted to the provision of advice alone. I also undertake that we shall draw authorities' attention to the scope for involving and


co-operating with businesses in the guidance to be issued under clause 4. That will ensure that they consider the potential for involving businesses fully.
It is not the intention that the guidance will list all organisations, groups or businesses that local authorities should approach—that will be something for them to decide—and I would hope that many will already know which organisations locally can provide the best opportunity for spreading the energy efficiency message. I expect the guidance to provide appropriate pointers, especially to those who are less advanced than others.
I hope that my explanation will persuade hon. Members that there is good reason for the amended wording now proposed for this part of clause 1—a small but most important part—and that the amendment will be welcomed by the hon. Lady and by the House.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment. The Bill presented on Second Reading contained provision for giving advice to householders, and advice and assistance to businesses, so I especially welcome the Minister's amendment, which he promised in Committee would be forthcoming.
It is worth re-emphasising the fact that this is not a Bill that will force individuals to do things. However, local authorities are not expected to remain neutral on energy conservation. They should promote, inform, educate and advise in their attempts to persuade as many people as possible to tackle energy inefficiency in their homes.
I recently visited Sutton, where the council is carrying out infra-red surveys from the air, as other councils have done. Sutton has put the videos taken from the air on display, and experts are on hand to tell people why their homes may be leaking heat, and to advise them how best to tackle the inefficiencies.
That is the sort of thing that we should encourage councils and businesses to do. Incidentally, may I tell the Minister that I have never been against local councils and businesses co-operating? I have always thought that we should promote such co-operation, as I did as a councillor—and I know that many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues do precisely the same.
I hope that we have now killed any belief that the Bill will bring the thermal thought police into people's homes. Advice has always been the key to the Bill's success, and I urge all hon. Members to support the Minister's amendment, which I welcome.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on the Bill, which I certainly support. Indeed, it has wide support. The idea of thermals thought police horrifies us all, but I understand that those of us who wear them will still be allowed to wear our thermals—indeed, they probably save energy from outside sources.
I underscore what the Minister about the valuable work of the Energy Saving Trust. Although it is an information-giving body, what people positively need, whether as home owners or in their businesses, is advice. Information is one thing and advice is quite another. That is not a small semantic point. Those of us who are interested in language appreciate the importance of the difference between information and advice.
I welcome the amendment because it will make the Bill more likely to promote activity, as the hon. Lady and the sponsors of the Bill intend. I have been associated with the sponsors and others interested in the Bill for a long time, and I think that people need specific advice that they can relate to their own properties, whatever those may he. That idea is implicit in the amendment.
I am sure that the House will remember that I had the luck, or the skill—it was probably luck—to inspire the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put an extra £20 million into home insulation during the closing stages of the memorable debate on VAT on fuel.

Mr. Piers Merchant: My hon. Friend was so persuasive.

Mr. Greenway: The extra money will certainly help many people to achieve better home insulation based on the advice specified in the amendment. There is no doubt that people are fairly unaware of the importance of home insulation, and of how it can be carried out in a way that will not bung up their homes.
The other day I wrote to an elderly constituent who had complained about her heating bill. I can well understand that, because she is a lady of over 80 who is not very well, with high blood pressure and so on. She asked me what she could do, and I told her that I had just had the pleasure of being present at the inauguration of an excellent home insulation scheme in the home of her neighbour, Mrs. Dormer, in Greenford road, and said, "Why don't I try to arrange for something similar for you? It is available to all pensioners."
The lady wrote back to say that she did not want her home bunged up with windows that she could not open and doors that got stuck. Proper advice would reassure her that that was not likely to happen. Those of us who have been to see the work in homes and businesses will testify to the skill of those who carry it out and to the fact that it is convenient and does not bung up homes and businesses in any way.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend will he aware of the excellent ConservEnergy scheme funded in part by EAGA as well as by other organisations such as Esso. The scheme helps in the individual private homes of old people, by fitting draught excluders and so on. I have assisted by putting in draught excluder strips and various other items in the home of a pensioner in Stone, in my constituency, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I certainly did not bung it up.

Mr. Greenway: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no limit to his talent; it is really tremendous. I inaugurated a scheme under the Home Energy Trust for Mrs. Dormer, whom I have already mentioned, and I did take a hammer and put in the last nail which had conveniently been left for me, but I must confess that I did nothing like the scale of work that my hon. Friend has told us about.

Mr. Fabricant: I was wearing an Esso ConservEnergy hat and apron at the time, and one local councillor told me that I looked very cute in them.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend is not only a man of enormous talent and skill—

Ms Joan Ruddock: And a leader of fashion too.

Mr. Greenway: Yes, that too. He excels in every way. I expect to see him running in the marathon soon—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Wearing the hat."]—yes, wearing his helmet and anything else that will enhance energy saving and raise money for good causes.
I must return to the Bill, as I am sure you will require me to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I support the amendment. The spirit in which it was moved by the Minister and accepted by the promoter of the Bill gives the House a proper hope that the Bill will succeed. If the Bill achieves its aims, we will have to congratulate not just the hon. Member for Christchurch, the Bill's sponsors and the many people who have thought out the valuable contribution to energy saving which the Bill will make, but my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government on their work in an area in which they are not given sufficient credit. The Government have produced some enormous achievements in energy saving.
I re-emphasise to all concerned in energy saving that advice is easily obtained, and that the Bill will enhance that position. When home or business insulation has been undertaken properly, savings to pensioners, businesses and others of some 33 per cent. can be achieved. I have heard of examples where energy bills have been halved following such action, and that can be nothing but helpful to the elderly and the sick, who have energy needs as we all do.

Mr. Merchant: The amendment is fairly narrowly drawn and that is something of a shame, as this is the first opportunity that I have had to participate in discussions on the Bill.
In supporting the amendment, I must say that I strongly support the thrust of the Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on bringing it to the House. Energy conservation is an interest of mine, and I have been involved in a number of related projects. Only this week I was given second prize in a Waste Watch competition, for which I was given an energy-saving bulb. I declared that there was only one room in my house that did not have such a bulb, and that was why that prize was chosen.
The reason why I like the Bill, which this amendment will not spoil, is that it has a light touch and yet goes to the heart of the problem. The difficulty with the Energy Conservation Bill which came before the House last year—great though it was in principle—was that it was somewhat heavy in practice and application. If the hon. Lady is a member of the thermal thought police, I am sure that she holds a fairly low rank. Her right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who unfortunately has slipped off, no doubt on a covert operation—is, I think, secretly the chief of the thermal police. [Interruption.] I see that the right hon. Gentleman has finished his secret task.
The central theme of the Bill is the need to give good advice. That advice must not just go to householders—vital though they may be—but must be in the form of a partnership with businesses, and this amendment stresses the importance of a partnership with business. The Bill aims to espouse good practice, which all authorities should aim to follow in the pursuit of energy conservation and its promotion.
Partnership has not always been popular. Like my hon. Friend the Minister, I remember when the old Labour party—now long-departed, or perhaps shortly departed—was not keen on encouraging a partnership with business.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: It has departed until after the next election.

Mr. Merchant: My hon. Friend is right. The old Labour party was not keen on fostering co-operation with business, and it even condemned the idea.
I am glad that Labour authorities, like others controlled by the other parties, are now keen to encourage partnership. We have seen partnership for business purposes in the encouragement of enterprise agencies and the regeneration of economic development. It is important that, in putting the message across on energy conservation and ensuring that the best means are adopted, the same sort of co-operation takes place.
The local authority which represents my constituency, Bromley, prides itself on being an enabling authority. I am sure that, in pursuit of the laudable objectives of this Bill, it would want to operate in conjunction with the suppliers of energy services and with suppliers in the area of energy conservation. For example, publicity for the use of low-energy bulbs and goods which will enable householders to operate in a more energy-conscious way could be produced in co-operation with local retailers and providers of electricity services.
The borough has encouraged co-operation with local newspapers in housing projects, and that could be continued into the area of energy conservation. One can even envisage authorities liaising with double glazing companies—this would have to be done carefully—'to promote the advantages of double glazing in terms of energy conservation.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that there is no exclusive need for partnership with business, and that that partnership can extend beyond business. It is important for local authorities and energy conservation authorities to extend that co-operation to the voluntary sector, including schools, youth clubs and magazines which have a great deal to contribute in this regard.
Schools are particularly important, because sometimes the best way of encouraging parents to co-operate in a laudable scheme is to use children, who can be employed as an eye-catching means of promoting an objective by taking it home and sharing it with their parents. There is a lot that parents can learn from their children, and ultimately from the schools. With two young children of my own, I am continually reminded of that.
We must persuade people to spend their own money on energy conservation. There is a role for the public sector in providing grants and loans, but, to a large proportion of the population, they are not relevant. What matters is encouraging those people to spend their money on measures which they might not have thought about otherwise. Amending the Bill to encourage the giving of advice to organisations—particularly businesses—will help achieve that. The message that I am trying to encourage is that the Bill will work best as a partnership. It will work if local authorities and energy conservation authorities work closely with their local communities to put into effect the Bill's objective, and I hope that the amendment will achieve an improvement.
Finally, will my hon. Friend the Minister look carefully at the cost implications to local authorities of the Bill? My authority—which has made it clear that it supports the Bill—is nevertheless concerned about its implications. Bromley is a well-managed local authority, and it


obviously wants to take fully into account any costs implications for itself and for its council tax payers, while supporting the objectives of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend can give some guidance as to how authorities can defray the costs involved and to what extent they can bring in funds which can be redirected to the costs of the audits that they will be required to carry out.
I welcome the amendment, which will improve the Bill, although perhaps only in a small way. I am glad also that it has given me the opportunity to register my strong support for the principle behind the Bill.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I have come to the House of Commons this morning not only to support the Bill but to take part in the debate, and in particular to speak to the amendments. The first amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Minister is highly relevant. It puts the onus on local authorities to give advice on energy conservation. It is extremely important in this day and age that we seek to meet our Rio commitments on emissions and ensure proper energy conservation, which has an impact on the care of the elderly. It is important that authorities should provide the advice that is required. The amendment, which adds the word "advice" to the requirements placed on the housing authorities, is highly relevant.
In the borough of Gravesham, the requirement falls on the housing department of Gravesham borough council. That is where the reference to advice is so important. We rightly do not rely solely on the local authorities nowadays to ensure that all that should be done locally is done. We rely on our local authorities to provide advice and act in a co-ordinating function as an information channel. I have looked into the energy conservation advice that is available to my constituents. Gravesham borough council housing department advises people to take up the support and information that is available from a number of other organisations.
10 am
I draw the attention of the House to the advice that can be made available to residents in respsect of energy conservation by an imaginative scheme introduced by Moat housing society, which operates in north-west Kent. I have visited it several times recently. Its care and repair scheme will be of particular benefit for home energy conservation. It assists particularly the elderly to put together all that is needed to improve energy conservation in their homes.
People receive advice on matters such as the priority that they should give to energy conservation, how they can find financial and grant assistance for energy conservation work and, above all, how they can find reliable and effective contractors to carry out energy conservation measures in their homes. One of the greatest problems that people have is finding advice on how to go about carrying out proper energy conservation.
The Moat housing care and repair scheme draws heavily on the Government's home energy efficiency scheme. As we all know, the scheme provides grants to vulnerable members of society for basic energy efficiency measures such as loft insulation, tank and pipe lagging and draught-proofing. It is interesting to note that the resources for the scheme have almost doubled in the current financial year. That has allowed the Government

to provide grants to more than 200,000 extra households per year. For the coming year, more than £100 million will be available. That is a 45 per cent. increase on the current year.
When those resources are made available by the Government, it is essential that advice is available to residents so that they know how to take up the resources and apply them to their housing to conserve energy. That is particularly relevant for the elderly, who are more vulnerable than most to the problem of cold in the winter.
Another scheme that should be brought to the attention of the public and, therefore, should be included in the advice provided by the borough council is the neighbourhood energy action scheme co-ordinated by ConservEnergy. I was involved in ConservEnergy week in my constituency late last year. It is interesting to know that, through neighbourhood energy action, the scheme co-ordinates a national network of agencies that provide services under the home energy efficiency scheme. It monitors the effectiveness of the policy framework and identifies good practice. That needs to be put into practical terms for local residents. That is why it is valuable that advice is available for the public and that the Bill will place the onus on housing authorities to provide that very advice.
Late last year, I was invited to see a scheme in Gravesham whereby assistance was given to a blind person in Gravesend. The scheme completed insulation and draughtproofing work on his house. The swork was carried out by a contractor who was a member of neighbourhood energy action and held the appropriate certification of Weatherguard insulation services.
So the Bill and in particular the provisions of the clause will take the matter further. I strongly support my hon. Friend the Minister in requiring the relevant authorities to provide advice on these important matters.

Mr. Fabricant: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. May I say how nice it is that we have some agreement across the Floor of the House. I have to confess that, had I been in the House when it voted to bring television into the Chamber, I would have voted for it. However, if the matter came up again, I would have grave doubts about it, because television has trivialised much of what happens in the House. The more thoughtful debates are not shown on television. So many people think that Labour Members, Conservative Members and Liberal Democrats are always at each other's throats. Of course that is not the case. I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on coming up with this worthwhile Bill.
I am particularly pleased with the amendment. It has broadened the scope of application of the Bill. In Staffordshire, we have many schools which have flat roofs. That is common in other counties. Other hon. Members are nodding in assent. Flat-roofed buildings are prone to losing heat. That puts an extra burden on school budgets. This is an ideal opportunity for the energy conservation authorities to give advice to schools, particularly those which have chosen to become grant-maintained and separated themselves from local education authority control.
The Bill also encourages people to invest their own money. It is an investment. It is a question not of spending but of investing money. It is an investment not only to save on future energy bills for homes and businesses, but


for the future of our children and our children's children and the welfare of the whole world. I would love to see similar Bills introduced in other countries. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will recommend in the Council of Ministers that similar measures be adopted in other member states of the European Union.
I have already mentioned that I have taken part in the ConseryEnergy programme. It is an excellent programme. It was initiated by the Energy Action Grants Agency. It enables elderly people to insulate their homes not only to conserve energy and reduce world pollution but to save money for themselves. The Bill is a double-edged sword which works for the benefit of all.
If we are undergoing climatic change, we should all be aware of the measures that we can take to conserve energy. I have worked extensively in northern Europe in countries such as Iceland. I worked with Icelandic radio, Rikisutvarpid, and Islenska Utvarpsfelagid, the independent station, which I suspect I will have to spell for the Hansard reporters. Towns such as Reykjavik and Akureyri are particularly prone to harsh winds and cold climates, although it is not as cold in Reykjavik as some might think because of the Gulf stream.
We are well aware of the need for energy conservation and the measures that they have taken in Iceland are quite trivial in that they are easily undertaken, so one would think that we could do it in the United Kingdom. Double glazing is a recent event in this country and one would think that that would be a sensible move.
The energy conservation authority can advise on such items of expenditure and initiatives. This amendment enables the authority not only to advise on homes, but to advise schools and businesses. One would think that businesses would initiate their own ways to save money and operating overheads for their companies, but small businesses often do not have the expertise to seek advice—there has been a huge growth in the registration of new small businesses—and would be extremely wary about going to a firm of architects, who could charge a huge amount of money for advice on energy conservation.
The establishment of energy conservation authorities throughout the United Kingdom, will provide a one-stop shop of thermal thought police—that is an expression that will he used a lot today—where people can go for advice and to find out how to invest their money most wisely, to ensure that their homes and businesses are insulated and to lower their operating costs.
Few people have any awareness of low-energy lighting, which has been mentioned. Hon. Members will be aware that it has already been fitted to most of the lights in the Palace of Westminster and its outbuildings. The cost of a low-energy lamp might at first seem prohibitive, yet one can regain it over two or three years. For those who have doubts about it, the energy conservation authority will be able to provide statistics on the energy and cost savings that are possible and on the best applications.
I confess that I was amused to hear the hon. Member for Christchurch refer to aircraft undertaking thermal imaging over Sutton. I wondered whether there was a bright spot over the home of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), where I suspect that a huge amount of hot air and wastage might he going into the upper atmosphere, although I am sure that it is in no way a pollutant. But perhaps I misjudge her, and she has insulated her home so that it is especially warm and pleasant.
The Bill is very helpful. Perhaps it is just the first step, but it is a necessary first step to ensure that operating costs are lower for businesses and to promote the welfare of the world's ecology. Extending the first clause with the use of the word "advice" and ensuring that we take in schools, businesses and charitable organisations, as well as homes, is a wise amendment, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Charles Hendry: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), this is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in this debate and on the Bill. As he said, the amendment is narrowly drawn, but I want to give the Bill a warm welcome and to congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on introducing it and my hon. Friend the Minister, who has ensured that it has Government support.
The Bill is directly relevant to my constituency. The very name High Peak makes people realise why energy conservation is important there. In that most glorious part of the peak district, we are the highest inhabited part of England. Inevitably, therefore, conservation and energy use issues will affect my constituency more than many other parts of the country. My constituents look to Christchurch as being on the balmy south coast—essentially a riviera-type environment, in comparison with some of the weather conditions that we have to endure.
Buxton is not just famous for its water, but is the name of the place that, on every weather forecast, seems to have endured the worst weather the previous day. It is invariably the coldest place in Britain and often the wettest, but it is also one of the nicest and jolliest places in the country. Therefore, we have a particular interest in this Bill.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I think that you will allow me to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that perhaps the beer in Buxton contributes to the jollity. They make very good beer there, as we know.

Mr. Hendry: I suspect that my hon. Friend may he thinking of Burton, which is a little down the road, but we certainly add to our conviviality by consuming small amounts, in moderation.

Mr. Greenway: I know about the beer in Burton, but there is also beer in Buxton. If my hon. Friend does not know about it, I will take him along to try it some time.

Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Apart from the different forms of liquid that characterise the town, we are a rural community and have many small, old buildings, many of which have ill-fitting windows, where double glazing came very late, and draughty cellars, so we need particular advice and help. The Bill will be of great support to my constituents, as it will ensure that they can live in more comfort and will cut the cost of doing so in the process.
I used to live in a little village called Sparrowpit, which is perched on the hills outside Buxton, and it always struck me that there was nothing between it and the Urals. Having shot across northern Europe, the first place that the winds hit was my back door. It was like living in a sieve and it did not feel as if there were any panes in the windows. However much one bunged up every gap, the


wind still came in. On one occasion, I removed the panelling under the sink only to discover that it was full of snow. I took out two sink loads, but no one could find the hole through which the snow had come into the house. That shows that we will be very grateful for the measures in the Bill.
On the amendment, the importance of advice cannot be underestimated and I welcome its inclusion. There are two different aspects. First, advice as distinct from information must be made available to householders as, for many elderly people, information is not sufficient. They are concerned about what they will be doing and about letting people whom they do not know into their homes. The information they get might be fairly general, but they will find it comforting and helpful to know that they can get independent advice through a statutory body.
The most important aspect of the inclusion of the word "advice", and the reason for its inclusion, is that it enables the Bill to go further than was initially envisaged. There was concern that it should be completely clear that an authority should be able to give advice to businesses that might want to offer energy conservation services.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham emphasised, it is most important that businesses work in tandem with the authorities in this. That is the way in which they and the local authorities would want to go forward. The Bill has the backing of the authorities in Derbyshire—not merely the borough councils, but also Derbyshire county council. I am glad that we have managed to find one area—perhaps the only one—on which the county council and I are in agreement. More importantly, it is vital that the authorities will be able to operate in conjunction with businesses and will not have to say that they cannot advise them because they are organisations that will be making money out of advising people how their homes can be better insulated and how they can conserve energy more effectively.
The inclusion of the word "advice" means that best practice can much more effectively be spread among the range of companies that will offer advice, information and services in this sector. Many companies are coming into this sector. In my constituency, they come from Chesterfield or from the north-west side of the Pennines. An increasing number of companies, which are often small businesses—one or two-man or woman businesses—seek to provide services in this sector. The fact that they will not be excluded from receiving advice is much to be welcomed.
There are substantive elements in the Bill to which I shall come later. Suffice it to say that the provision of advice is an important step forward because it goes beyond information. I welcome its inclusion in the Bill.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Like my hon. Friends, I welcome the Bill and especially the amendment, which would add giving advice to the duties and powers of local authorities in promoting energy efficiency measures. Like them, I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on her wisdom in promoting the Bill, which will, I am sure, find favour in the House and duly become law. I cannot agree with every dot and comma of the Bill; given the circumstances, it would be curious if I did. Nevertheless, I congratulate the hon. Lady.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis)—he is not in his place, but sitting in the Special Strangers' Gallery—on his work in introducing similar legislation. I was a sponsor of his Energy Conservation Bill. He first identified the importance of ensuring that energy audits for individual houses and the advice resulting from that were made available.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), I believe that it is important for councils to be able to give advice. Although the climate in my area is as hospitable as my constituents, we have many houses that were built in the 1950s and 1940s. They do not come up to modern standards of insulation, and therefore waste energy unnecessarily.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) I believe that our commitments under the Rio treaty are important in reducing CO2 emissions and in ensuring that temperatures do not reach the levels that are anticipated in the next 100 years. Although an increase of 0.3 deg C on average across the world may not sound a great deal, it could lead to an increase in sea level of 6 cm. That could be extremely damaging and, I understand, irreversible.
It must, however, be said that some bodies, such as the Institute of Economic Affairs, have called into question global warming. They have advanced the argument that many of the monitoring stations that anticipate an increase in global warming do so purely because they are in a position different from that of 10 or 20 years ago. In many parts of America, the monitoring stations have been overtaken by urban and suburban developments, which means that there is greater heat retention. When that is stripped out of the equation, it may be found that global warming is not the problem that has been anticipated. Nevertheless, let us assume that it is a problem. The advice which, under the amendment, would have to be given by councils to people such as my constituents is important.
After the Rio summit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that there must be a balance between people's needs and the environment in which they live. My view is that, when the council gives advice to constituents, people will find that the conflict is not as severe as anticipated. Energy efficiency is also cost efficiency and cost efficiency means greater competitiveness, whether in the domestic or in the industrial sphere. I hope that councils will lay down clearly the improvements in efficiency that they anticipate in their areas as a result of the Bill. In giving advice to local businesses and local people, it may be more difficult than anticipated to be categorical about what the savings might be.
I am pleased that the scope of the Bill has been extended. Clause 2(4) refers to
the extent of decreases in emissions into the atmosphere of oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide
in addition to carbon dioxide. I understand that it is estimated that there is a potential 75 per cent. saving in nitrous oxide emissions which will have a significant health effect as well as an environmental effect. Such emissions may be significantly connected with the large increase in reported asthma cases in hospitals and GP surgeries over the past 10 years. It is estimated that, over the past 10 years, the incidence of reported asthma has increased by about 50 per cent., which is remarkable.


Asthma appears to be the only life-threatening disease that is significantly on the increase in the United Kingdom. It would be a brave man who did not link that increase to the increasing environmental pollution and CO2 emissions with which the advice from local authorities and the whole thrust of the Bill are meant to deal.
You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a debate on the Adjournment about three weeks ago, which I initiated, on the health effects of congestion and the emissions from vehicles. I hope that the Bill and the advice that councils are able to give as a result of it will make a significant contribution to solving that problem.
The second-year report from the Government entitled "This Common Inheritance" says:
Using energy efficiently is the quickest and most cost-effective way of reducing CO2 emissions.
I understand from international organisations that monitor air quality that the United Kingdom is likely to be one of the few nations, through the Bill and the significant reduction in emissions that it will bring about, and through the advice that councils will be able to give to local communities under the amendment, that will meet the target.
It could be argued that the target of a 5 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions may be significantly too modest. It is estimated that, by 2005, Germany will achieve a reduction of between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. in CO2 emissions and that Denmark will achieve a 20 per cent. reduction. The poorer countries in Europe, such as Greece, Portugal and Spain, may have to increase their CO2 emissions as their economies develop industrially. The more sophisticated and developed industrialised nations may, therefore, have an obligation to reduce their CO2 emissions, thus reducing CO2 emissions throughout Europe as a whole.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although 30 per cent. of CO2 emissions come from industry and 21 per cent. from road transport—one might have expected those percentages to be much higher—as much as 27 per cent. of emissions come from domestic usage? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is important because it will save energy not only in the home for the sake of home owners but for the sake of the general ecology of the world?

Mr. Coombs: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the advice that will be given by councils to domestic householders will make a significant contribution towards achieving the target reduction of 10 million tonnes of carbon by the year 2000. Currently, 158 million tonnes of carbon are emitted into the atmosphere every year in the United Kingdom.
The advice that will be given to communities by councils will build upon some of the advice-driven initiatives of central Government. In 1992, the "helping the earth begins at home campaign" pointed out that, every year, the average household emits some 7.5 tonnes of carbon as a result of energy usage. The document "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth", published in 1994, also drew attention to that fact.
I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) and for High Peak about the importance of labelling on energy-saving merchandise, in particular energy-saving light bulbs. As a

result of the amendment, individual householders will he made aware of where those energy-saving devices are most easily available and which firms can correctly install them. Their use would make a significant contribution to reducing CO2 emissions and meeting the desired target.
I also hope that councils will advise householders about the home energy efficiency scheme, which, according to my calculations from documents on the Bill available in the Library, accounts for some £102 million per year of taxpayers' spending. Since 1991, that scheme has ensured that no fewer than half a million homes have been insulated.
On 24 February, I visited my constituent, Mrs. Ethel Swift, of 20 Rosemary road. She had been given advice by the council about the conservation of energy scheme through neighbourhood energy action. We watched as people registered by the council insulated her loft and draught-stripped her windows and front door. 1 am sure that those measures will make a substantial contribution to Mrs. Swift's energy needs, so that she will be able to maintain the same level of heating while using far less energy. As a result, her energy bills and the CO2 emissions from her home will be reduced.
As a result of the amendment, I should like councils to advise landlords of their obligations under the Housing Act 1985. The Institute of Environmental Assessment has also stressed the importance of those obligations. It believes that energy efficiency should be part of the fitness standards applied to houses that are assessed for potential grant aid through either the home energy efficiency scheme or more general grant aid provisions.
I also hope that, when councils give advice to households, they will stress the importance of the Energy Saving Trust and, in particular, the availability of local energy advice centres. They have been set up as a result of co-operation between the private and public sectors, the Government, British Gas, regional electricity companies and Scottish Power. I understand that some problems have arisen as a result of Ms Spottiswoode's opinion on the E-factor and whether it can be used, in part, to fund the Energy Saving Trust. Nevertheless, work agreed by the trust—for example, loft insulation—the lagging of hot water pipes, draught-stripping and heating controls has benefited about 350,000 houses.
I hope that local authorities will be able to advise my constituents about the availability of local energy advice centres. If, as I hope, additional finance is made available to the Energy Saving Trust, I also hope that my constituents will be able to take advantage of the advice offered by the trust.
I also hope that projects can be developed, again as a result of the advice offered by councils, with third parties, which could fund schemes such as the home energy efficiency scheme and the Energy Saving Trust. Private companies which put money into those schemes would be able to benefit from savings made by individual householders as a result of the installation of energy-saving equipment. For instance, according to the energy efficiency policies drawn up in 1993, an agreement was reached between New York city and Benec Industries, which installed, inter alia, insulation and boiler modifications on the same lines as those made by the


Energy Saving Trust, in municipally owned flats. The savings in the heating bills paid by the city were shared between New York and Benec Industries.

Ms Ruddock: I am absolutely fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the Energy Saving Trust.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: If the hon. Lady sat down, we would hear some more about that commitment.

Ms Ruddock: I do not think that that intervention from a sedentary position was necessary.
If the hon. Member for Wyre Forest is so concerned that sufficient moneys should be available to the Energy Saving Trust and shares my concern about the attitude of the regulator about that, he should persuade his hon. Friends on the Front Bench to tackle that problem through the Gas Bill, which is before the House.

Mr. Coombs: It is possible that, as a result of the long, eloquent speeches of my hon. Friends, the Minister will be so persuaded and will talk to his colleagues who are handling that Bill.
Advice is important, but it is useful only if it is specific and leads to action by householders. It is estimated that, on average, it will cost local authorities £40,000 to provide advice to householders. I am concerned that councils will, however, effectively have to guess the potential energy-saving measures that could be adopted in each home.
For instance, energy saving may be all about lagging pipes or loft insulation, but it is difficult to inspect a house from the outside and to guess what those energy savings might be. We must not forget that the Bill does not permit councils right of entry. It is those householders who do not pay a great deal of attention to energy saving who will need such advice, but it is precisely those people who will not be prepared to allow councils in to inspect their homes.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Has my hon. Friend had my good fortune to see aerial photographs of streets from which it is possible to spot heat escaping from the lofts of certain houses that are not insulated? Such photographs reveal that insulation could result in energy saving.

Mr. Coombs: That is a good point.
I return to the advice that councils will give as a result of their assessment of the cost of the energy conservation measures set out in clause 2, subsection (3)(a), and also as a result of their assessment of the extent to which carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere would decrease as a result of those measures.
I ask the Minister through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how, as a result of spending about £41,000 a year, which is about enough to pay two officers, any meaningful information about savings, monetary or of carbon dioxide, will be gained from councils, given the fact that they will generally do a roadside check on houses which will be very rough indeed. Some householders to whom they will give advice will have insulated their houses. Some will have done it 30 years ago, others 10 years ago. I am at a loss to know how one will obtain a sensible evaluation of the carbon dioxide emissions that could be saved or of the costs of energy conservation measures that could be taken.
It is very difficult to avoid that problem without giving the thought police, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire said, powers of entry into houses so that they can inspect lagging and loft insulation, which no one would want. I question the value of the information that individual local authorities will be able to elicit, and therefore the value of the reports that they will be able to produce.

Ms Ruddock: I do not know whether this is helpful, but I am told that two local authorities, Derby city council and Newark and Sherwood district council, estimated that they could secure the information required, not by the Bill, as it happens, but by the previous Bill, the Energy Conservation Bill—the Bill before us is simpler—so it might cost even less. Their estimate was £50,000 to do a full energy audit per local authority, but they decided to do it on the basis of 10 per cent. of homes, which seems feasible to all of us.
Obviously, many people, when they know that there is a local authority scheme that will prove helpful, would be prepared to volunteer and to allow people to enter their homes on a voluntary basis by agreement because they would understand, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest obviously does, the great gains that could result from such a process of information-gathering.

Mr. Coombs: Let us hope that people do allow the local authority into their homes in the enlightened way that the hon. Lady has described. Let us also hope that the homes that are inspected are representative of homes in the district, so giving more than a spurious accuracy to the figures on which the advice about which we are now talking is based.
I say to the Minister that there is no value in an exercise such as that unless it leads to action being taken by householders whose energy savings will potentially be assessed. It is my opinion that people do not take any action to improve their loft insulation or their pipe insulation and so on for two reasons. First, they do not know specifically the savings that will be made in their properties, as opposed to the district as a whole, and secondly, they are afraid of being ripped off by contractors who are likely to do a shoddy job.
If the advice that local authorities give as a result of the amendment includes, as in the ConserveEnergy scheme in some areas, lists of reputable contractors who can be relied on to do a good job and to give an accurate estimate of the specific reductions in energy bills that will be made possible by insulation and loft insulation and lagging and so on, it would be worth while. However, the Government need to keep a close eye on it if the measure is to be as effective as it should be.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I apologise if I strike a somewhat discordant note in the debate, as I often appear to do in the worthy debates that we hold on a Friday morning. Everyone has congratulated the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on an excellent Bill. We all realise the costs that are involved in wasting energy and we know that the country has an energy bill of about £50 billion a year, so we are right to seek ways to reduce that.
What do we emerge with at the end of that long discussion about ways to save energy? We emerge with a Bill that I am neutral about, which I neither support nor oppose, which I fear will be pointless. All that will happen


is that a certain amount of money will be spent by local authorities on producing more reports. Do we really need more reports written by more local authority officers?

Mr. Merchant: More paperwork.

Mr. Leigh: The Bill may cost only more paperwork, as my hon. Friend says. It may only cost £40,000 or £50,000 per authority. From personal experience of the way in which local authorities work, the way in which empires grow and the way in which officers are appointed for all types of worthy causes, I doubt that the cost will be limited to that sum. However, that is a central part of the Bill. We all know, as we have read the Bill, that the report by the local authorities shall include
an assessment of the cost of the energy conservation measures set out in it".
I am afraid that I hold a different opinion of the way to save energy. It must be left to people. Householders will decide, and businesses—amendment No. 2 is especially about businesses. Householders will choose to save energy if the cost of their energy increases to such a level that their personal circumstances, or the market, or whatever, forces them to save energy.
Many reports—worthy reports, which are detailed in the Bill and in the amendment—are written by local authority officers and however much we talk about a partnership between local authorities and businesses, and however much we encourage businesses to become involved and so on, they are busy people who are already burdened by a great deal of regulation by local authorities, and they will act only if it is in their economic interest so to act. They will act if the cost of energy increases.
None of us liked VAT on fuel, but we voted for it, and one of the reasons for doing so was to save energy and to make people aware of the true costs of energy. That is how we shall undertake our Rio commitments. We shall save energy if the price of energy reflects its true market value.

Ms Ruddock: Most of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues this morning have spoken about elderly women, many of them, I think, in their 80s.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Not necessarily female—mine was male.

Ms Ruddock: Well, elderly people. Some of them had female names, I note.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Well, it just happens that Ethel is a woman's name. It was a Mr.

Mr. Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

Ms Ruddock: Whether it is a man or a woman, let us say that many Conservative Members have spoken of elderly people in their homes suffering from energy loss, and about the work that has been done to insulate those homes better. How does the hon. Gentleman think that a pure price mechanism, increasing the cost of fuel to households of that kind, would achieve the objectives if there were not information gathering, and advice were not given to help such households?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would advise the hon. Gentleman not to go too far down that path. I have been

very tolerant this morning, but many hon. Members have been getting back to the word, "advice", which has saved them, and saved my legs an awful lot as well. If they can stick formally to the amendment now, it would be helpful to the debate.

Mr. Leigh: I am glad that the hon. Lady made that intervention, because she has led me to the argument that I wanted to make in a moment. You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker; one can answer that intervention by way of the amendment.
Advice is important, and we all understand that many elderly people need more heat than we younger people need, that they often live in older homes and that we have a duty to help them. That is why I do not oppose the Government's energy efficiency schemes. They constitute action, and that is what we should be talking about.
The Government, whom I support, have doubled the resources available to help elderly and disabled people to insulate their homes. The answer to the hon. Lady's question is that there is nothing wrong in the market mechanism and in intervening occasionally in the market when it does not work with a class of people. What is wrong is to assume, as the hon. Member for Christchurch does, that one can solve those problems simply by producing more and more reports and paperwork, and talking in worthy terms of advice, partnership and so on.
One achieves things in life by doing things. If one feels that the market is not working—if one feels that a class of people cannot afford to do up their homes, and their energy is being taxed more because they are part of society as a whole—one concludes that those people are being placed in an unfair position, and decides to help them. That is precisely what the Government are doing, and what the Bill does not do.
We have heard about the Energy Saving Trust, which is an excellent organisation and a private-sector initiative. It wants to save 2.5 million tonnes of carbon by the year 2000—an excellent goal. That organisation is trying to do something, but what will the Bill achieve? I suspect that it will simply create more paperwork.
Many people in the House, including the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), believe passionately that we smoke too many cigarettes. Is she suggesting that the way to deal with the problem is to introduce a Bill to give local authorities the power to carry out an assessment of cigarette smoking in their areas? That is not the answer. To stop people smoking cigarettes, we must tax cigarettes more highly. The same is true of drinking or of anything else.
I come from Lincolnshire—one of the coldest counties in the country. We have heard about what happens on High Peak, but when we in Lincolnshire get the east wind whistling off the North sea, there is nothing between us and the Urals. Once, when I was travelling along the top of the Lincolnshire wolds, I heard Moscow radio. I knew from the wind coming in through the car window that it was pretty cold. We know all about the importance of saving energy, heating our homes and why we have to do it, but we do not think that the cause will be helped by a report by West Lindsey district council, my local authority—a small council, which already has many duties laid upon it by the House. We criticise local authorities, but those who work in them say that it is all very well for people down south to talk in terms of large


authorities and say, "It's only £40,000 or £50,000." That is a significant cost for my little local authority to bear, and the measure will not help anyone in the long run.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and one that I mentioned in my contribution when I said that action was more important than advice to my constituents when saving energy. In 1993, the Liberal party produced a document called "Taxing Pollution not People", which said that we should end
the anomalous zero-rate of VAT on fuel".
Now, that party talks about phasing in an EU-wide carbon energy tax.

Mr. Leigh: We all know that the Liberal party is interested in advising people, but its advice is often different in different parts of the country and on different issues. The Liberals are primarily concerned with making political progress. Conservatives are concerned0 with the process of government and trying to achieve something.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to his post. He has a long record of interest in such issues. His moderate stance on the subject will allow us to make progress. I hope that when he winds up the debate he will try to answer the issues that I have raised and detail what the Government have done in a practical sense to encourage business and to deal with the problems through taxation or through the Department of Trade and Industry.
I hope that the rest of the debate will not be characterised by a lack of intellectual rigour and logic.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I strongly support the amendment, which emphasises the importance of advice. I should like to mention a couple of issues in relation to Wales, which apply also to England.
Local authorities will have the power to advise not only organisations in their own territories but organisations on a broader basis. In Wales as in England, housing associations are active. In Wales, they are funded by an all-Wales organisation, Tai Cymru, and in England by the Housing Corporation. Local authorities will have the power to advise and to influence the policy of an organisation such as Tai Cymru. That is currently causing difficulties in terms of constructing houses that are energy efficient.
The housing association grant—HAG—provided by Tai Cymru does not take sufficient account of the need for energy efficiency when designing homes. Tai Cymru recently produced a pattern book for housing design. I am told by housing associations that the book makes it more difficult than before to construct energy-efficient homes. I should like the Minister's confirmation, but I assume that local authorities' advice will be aimed at organisations such as the funding organisations—'Tai Cymru in Wales and the Housing Corporation in England.
Can I take it that the undertakings given by the Minister in Committee will apply to Wales? Will the undertakings given on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment apply to the Secretary of State for Wales? Undertakings were given on when the Bill's provisions would be implemented. Will those undertakings apply to Wales? Other undertakings on ministerial guidance have been important in obtaining agreement on the Bill's form. I should like it to be made clear that such undertakings

will apply to Wales—in particular that local government reorganisation will not be used as an excuse for postponing the implementation of the Bill's provisions in Wales.
I congratulate, and thank, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on taking up the cause in her Bill, which is now approaching fruition. It is a tribute not only to her persistence but to her vision, that she adopted the cause in the Bill rather than a less controversial one. It is also important to congratulate the Under-Secretary on his support. The importance of that support becomes clear when we hear some of the contributions that Conservative Members have made this morning.
The Bill will provide us with a UK-wide strategy on domestic property. Although the Bill contains no targets, we understand that targets will form part of ministerial guidance. The Bill is only a beginning: action—implementation of the provisions—is what counts. A framework of planning is essential. When planning, provisional advice to individuals and property owners is crucial. That is part of the process of developing among people a responsible attitude towards energy use.
Implementation of the measures will depend on the provision of resources to enable action to be taken. Considerable public resources will have to be made available if we are to take the subject seriously. The plans will provide a focus. The advice will establish and encourage heightened awareness of energy efficiency—bringing it down to a private and personal level of responsibility.
The organisation Friends of the Earth has recently been encouraging local authorities to adopt a climate resolution, which encourages local authorities and the people within them to take seriously the subject of energy—not just energy efficiency, but energy generally. That will include local authorities encouraging the development of renewable energy within their territories.
The importance of encouraging the growth of nuclear industry has been mentioned. Clearly, we should not adopt that policy, which tends to offer an unrealistic panacea.

Mr. Fabricant: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the nuclear industry, but does he agree that there should still be considerable research into it, particularly into fusion? Does he accept—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the amendment.

Mr. Dafis: I shall not say too much in response to that intervention. Huge research resources have been invested in the nuclear industry, and are still being invested in fusion. If we put a fraction of those resources into the development of renewables, we should be making an important contribution to the sort of issues contained in Friends of the Earth's climate resolution programme. I recently attended the launch in the House of an organisation called Euro Solar UK. I commend to all hon. Members the work of that organisation in exerting pressure for the development of renewables, which must go hand in hand with energy efficiency.
It is important to put the question into its proper context at this stage. We need not only an integrated energy efficiency policy but an integrated energy policy. The Bill represents the start of a process that, with good will on


the part of this and succeeding Governments, could lead to a general integrated energy policy, which must include a transport component.

11 am

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I may be last to speak in the debate, but I hope that I am not least.
Amendment No. 2 is a very important amendment which deals with advice. I should like to address the question of the quality of that advice and who will provide it. Unfortunately, the Bill tends to focus on the residential sector, but it is equally important to the commercial sector, because probably more progress can be made in the energy efficiency field within that sector.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on introducing the Home Energy Conservation Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), but the Bill does not involve the commercial sector at all.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing the Bill and also to welcome the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), to the Front Bench. I understand that this is his debut Bill, and it is good to see him in the Chamber today.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was Chairman of the Environment Select Committee, of which I am a member, which conducted an inquiry into energy efficiency. Advice about energy efficiency matters was an important element of the inquiry and we learned a lot about the various sources from which that advice can come.
With other colleagues, I was privileged to meet an elderly gentleman in my constituency who took part in the ConserveEnergy scheme run by the Energy Action Grants Agency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said, real action resulted from that scheme. My elderly constituent received advice about energy efficiency measures such as placing draught strips around doors and windows, installing an insulation jacket around his hot water cylinder and insulating the roof, and thus was able to reduce his energy bills significantly. He said that, as a result, he will be able to remain in his house for at least another two years rather than enter a residential home. He benefited from that excellent advice, and in so doing he saved himself and the country a considerable amount of money.
Hon. Members have already referred to the question of supplying advice to local authorities. I have some reservations about the immense scope of the legislation, and hence the bureaucracy that will confront local authorities. Clause 2, which deals with advice, is very wide in its scope. Under that clause, advice will apply to emissions of nitrous oxides and sulphur dioxide, the assessment of the number of jobs, the assessment of average savings and, as though that were not enough, such other matters as are considered appropriate. A considerable amount of bureaucracy could flow from that.
Fortunately, the saving grace comes in subsection (5) of clause 2, which states:
An energy conservation authority may in preparing the report consult such persons as it considers appropriate.

I think that that is the key to the amendment, as it states who should provide advice on energy efficiency matters. As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, the Energy Savings Trade Association—ESTA—is an umbrella organisation for 80 firms which are involved in the energy efficiency business and which give energy efficiency advice.
The field of energy efficiency advice is much more developed in other countries. For example, in the United States so-called contract energy management companies provide a considerable amount of advice not only to the public sector but to private individuals. The energy efficiency business is about local authorities and the public sector providing advice, but it also involves individuals because they are the ones who will benefit from that advice.
I hope that the Minister will mention the role of the private sector in giving advice. That is a very important point. In evidence to the Environment Select Committee, ESTA said that it could typically provide advice at rates five to 10 times cheaper than the public sector. I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage local authorities to approach private sector firms for advice when drawing up their energy efficiency plans.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will also refer to the public sector and to the Energy Efficiency Office, which is sponsored by his Department and which has not been referred to in the debate so far. That office is a major provider of advice. It sponsors the Energy Saving Trust, to which several hon. Members have referred. It has a budget of some —15 million to —20 million and it represents one of the best ways of disseminating advice about best practice throughout the country by way of its regional energy efficiency officers.
I hope that my hon. Friend will inform the House about the quality of advice delivered by those regional energy efficiency officers and how they will be able to assist individual local authorities in drawing up their plans. During the Committee's inquiry, concern was expressed that the regional energy efficiency officers network was not so complete as it might be. I am concerned that, if the Bill is passed today, it will be necessary to reinforce that regional network so that best practice information can be disseminated to local authorities very quickly.
I believe that this is a critical amendment. Local authorities must consult the very best sources about energy efficiency matters. The private sector is at the leading edge in providing that advice and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will encourage private sector firms to supply it. There is enormous scope for using that advice to improve the rather rundown, elderly housing stock in some local authority areas.

Ms Ruddock: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to save both your legs and your voice by confining my remarks entirely to the amendment. I shall not emulate the performances of some Conservative Members whose contributions have, I think, resembled Second Reading speeches.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: How does the hon. Lady assesses the content of the very learned speeches by Labour Back Benchers on this important Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should settle down a little. The Chair will decide what is in order and what is not.

Ms Ruddock: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment was clearly introduced as a result of the considerations by the hon. Member for Chichester—

Mr. Matthew Banks: Christchurch.

Ms Ruddock: I apologise. I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on bringing the Bill to this stage.

Mr. Banks: What has that to do with the amendment?

Ms Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman would assist me no end if he could keep his remarks to himself and allow me to speak directly to the amendment.
In moving the amendment, the Minister referred to the consideration that had been given to supplying advice to business. I put it on the record that we are extremely keen that there should be a two-way process between local authorities and business in the collecting of information. There is much that can be gained from business giving advice to local authorities and vice versa.
The Labour party is committed to the partnerships that its local authorities have developed with local businesses. We have seen the positive results of those partnerships and there is no doubt that, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, there is much to he gained by taking the advice of those commercially involved in energy efficiency. We have no problem with that. My local authority in Lewisham, which has been a pioneer in developing such partnerships, has shown how they can be applied to energy efficiency and savings.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, although he would not accept a provision limited to business, he intends to ensure that advice giving and, indeed, advice taking, is more widespread. We support that notion. The Minister states in his guidance that he will not be prescribing the limits or list of organisations, but we none the less hope that he will encourage and support the idea of the exchange of advice, which is be in all our interests.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) cast some aspersions on Labour councils in particular. I should like to put it on the record that we are extremely proud of their record and achievements, especially in the matter of energy conservation. Gathering information is essential if a council is to be able to give advice. It is impossible to give advice in a vacuum—information must be gathered on which that advice can properly he mounted.
My local authority in Lewisham has undertaken an energy audit of all its housing stock and surveyed the public buildings in its ownership to identify the scope for energy-saving measures. Those buildings include, of course, schools and youth clubs which have already been

mentioned. That work has already been done and we are convinced that the Bill's provisions will make it possible to do much more.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am interested to hear that the hon. Lady's local authority has been giving itself advice. Was that advice given by its own officers or did it, as I suggested, take advice from private sector firms?

Ms Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman should not be surprised that a local authority is giving itself advice. The Bill offers the important opportunity for local authorities to assess what is required—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, I am tackling his surprise that my local authority is giving itself advice.
We are aware, and I know that the Minister is, too, that much local authority housing stock, like that of the private sector, is badly insulated. No one denies that. There is a need to tackle the problem, but the relevant information needs first to be gathered. The local authority must advise itself although, of course, it consults experts and makes any advice available to its own officers. Clearly, if work needs to be done, it is in many cases passed to the private sector.
The work done by Lewisham council includes the giving of advice about what is necessary to make energy savings in individual homes.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way. She stresses the role of local authorities, but she must accept that local businesses involved in energy conservation have a great deal of experience that they can offer directly. It is far cheaper and more efficient to look in the Yellow Pages and find the firms which have the necessary information and expertise. Why do local authorities need to advise themselves and produce reports? Surely that adds nothing but more regulation and cost.

Ms Ruddock: There is a good reason for local authorities to advise themselves. If information is to be gathered there has to be trust between public authorities and the people. It is sometimes necessary for people to he asked to allow officers into their homes when assessments have to be made. That is entirely appropriate for the gathering of information.
It is crucial that any advice given is independent; it is not appropriate that advice should be given by people who stand to gain commercially from giving it. The Government have acknowledged that central or local government departments can give advice of an independent nature which people can trust even if, as I said, any action resulting from that is more likely to involve contracts with the private sector. It would be ludicrous to believe that the Labour party does not want partnerships with the private sector. At this point, I may stray from the amendment if I am not careful, but I wish to point out that one of the reasons we value the Bill so much is that it will create jobs, and many of them will be in the private sector.
11.15 am
I conclude by mentioning the well known pioneering work in information gathering and advice giving done by Kirklees metropolitan council. The council has adopted an affordable warmth and energy efficient strategy to achieve lower fuel bills through a programme of insulation, ventilation—the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr.


Greenway) would be pleased to hear that if he were in the Chamber today—and heating combined with education and advice. The advice service is available to all residents, not only council tenants.
We support the amendment, which I am sure will be helpful in shaping the final Bill, and we thank the Minister for tabling it.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the debate.
I think that I am right in sensing that, with perhaps one or two exceptions, there is a warm welcome for the amendment, and I trust that it is also an energy-efficient welcome. We have dealt with a wide range of important issues relating to energy efficiency because, naturally enough, they have a strong link with advice. It is not terribly surprising, therefore, that we have focused on energy efficiency to a large extent.
I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) for welcoming the amendment. We have tried to work together during the passage of the Bill to ensure that it is good legislation when, as I hope that it will, it reaches the statute book. This was one of those matters where our differences were more apparent than real, as we both clearly wanted advice to be given but not necessarily in an exclusive way.
The hon. Lady touched on the infra-red surveys in the London borough of Sutton, but I believe that a number of boroughs are also involved. That is an example of the practical way in which the message can be put across to people that they are a lot less energy-efficient than they think. It is my experience from dealing with my constituents that people always think that they have energy-efficient homes because they put in a bit of insulation many years ago. They believe that that is the be-all and end-all of energy efficiency. However, technology and standards change, and we need to ensure that advice is kept up to date and that people can take advantage of whatever is available at any given time.

Mr. Fabricant: Just 10 years ago, the advice was that 3 in of loft insulation lagging was sufficient, whereas 6 in is now regarded as the very minimum.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right, and gives a pointed example of precisely the point that I am making.
I also think that it is important there should be a two-way involvement, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said. I visited Leicester city council not so long ago—I think that it is controlled by the hon. Lady's party—and it was emphasising the way in which it works with businesses and how it encourages them to canvass for work in the areas in which people were more prosperous and could afford to put it energy conservation measures themselves.
That is one of the big gaps in the system. We aim a lot of effort at people who need the help, but it is much more difficult to get the message over to the people who can afford to sit down and write cheques for their energy bills. Trying to run a campaign to advise those people and then get them to do something about the advice will be one of the challenges for local authorities, for the Government and for all those involved.
There are, of course, good local authorities and not so good local authorities, and I am keen to improve the worst to the standards of the best and then improve them all.

One of the initiatives we took recently was to invite a number of authorities to seminars—in Leeds and in Nottingham—which were aimed at trying to spread the word, using matrices so that people could identify where they were with particular areas of energy efficiency policy, and gradually to improve them over a period. I was delighted with the enthusiasm that developed among local authorities, which although they may not have been hostile to energy efficiency were clearly in need of advice through exchange of best practise. We shall continue to go down that road.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who is not with us—no doubt because he has gone off to insulate another home in whichever road it was in his constituency—mentioned his support for the Energy Saving Trust. That was echoed by a number of my hon. Friends and, indeed, implicitly by the hon. Member for Deptford. The Energy Saving Trust is an important element in our energy conservation strategy, and what it can do in terms of advice and in "catalysing" movements towards greater energy efficiency is key.
My hon. Friend also mentioned energy advice centres. They, too, have an important role to play. I recently visited the energy advice centre in the metropolitan borough of Sandwell, in the west midlands. Telephone calls came in from members of the public, and the staff talked people through the problems of their homes and the options that were available, giving advice and sending out leaflets that were tailor-made to those individuals. In that way, it was complying with the spirit of what my hon. Friend was talking about—namely, tailoring the advice to the particular circumstances. I think that that is the only way to get the message across to people with varied house types as to what they can practically do and what the pay-back is.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the home energy efficiency scheme.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is much better for the energy advice offices to give advice direct to individuals, who will then do their own energy saving improvements, rather than local authorities trying to enforce energy efficiency measures?

Mr. Jones: I have always though that advice, provided that people are prepared to listen to it, is welcome to anybody. The energy advice centres are aimed primarily at individuals; we have other mechanisms by which to aim advice at local authorities.
The HEES is an excellent scheme, and it is clear, from what they have said, that many hon. Members have participated in their own constituencies, and that it is a good way of getting over to people the importance of the scheme and is helping to publicise it to those who, perhaps, have not learnt that it is available and therefore have not applied. My only worry about it is that, on occasions, so many of the good and the great are rushing in and out of the houses that the pay-back period must be lengthened considerably by the draughts that are coming through the door as a result of their being left open for photographs and so on. But that, perhaps, is a minor point. I was in the Chamber when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, the extra £20 million, and I was delighted to hear that news, because it is one of our most excellent schemes, and I hope very much that people will take advantage of it.


I also welcome the involvement of private industry with energy action grants. Only last night, Esso presented £100,000 as its contribution for the coming year to the work being done. There is much good work going on, and I very much welcome the comments of hon. Members present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) coined a phrase, which, I think, is apt in describing the Bill. He said that it has a light touch but goes to the heart of the problem. It is important to have that light touch to avoid what has been named the "thermal thought police issue", which was referred to by many hon. Members.
We have been trying, on both sides of the Committee and now the House, to develop a practical Bill that will result in action, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said, but to have action one needs a certain amount of information; otherwise, one will waste an awful lot of money through not having the right priorities. If one sees, as I do, the Bill and our energy conservation strategy as being not just about the environment but an anti-poverty strategy, one wants the right sort of information to be able to prioritise—to use that awful word—the investment that local authorities and the Government are putting in.
My hon. Friend stressed partnership with businesses and asked me to confirm that it would not be an exclusive role for businesses. I am happy to confirm that, because the whole spirit of what I was saying was that there are many other people who could be involved, and the voluntary sector is one of the most important of those. Hon. Members will be familiar with the work of organisations like Age Concern, for example, which does a lot of work to ensure that our messages are put across to target groups.
My hon. Friend also referred to the costs of the measure, as did a number of hon. Members. I repeat the undertaking that I gave in Committee that the new burdens procedure will apply and that we will discuss the resource implications with local authority associations. I do not necessarily accept that there is any cost in the end, because from research that we have had carried out, if local authorities put in energy efficiency measures in their stock, it can often result in lower maintenance costs, fewer voids, greater tenant satisfaction, and so on. There are swings as well as roundabouts, but we will want to examine the costs to ensure that they are not disproportionate and that the right outcome is there from the point of view of local authorities and ourselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) referred to the care and repair scheme. That is another example, not just of advice but of action, because the whole point of such schemes is that they help to ensure that the proper repairs to integrate energy conservation are used for the benefit of keeping people in their homes who might otherwise go into sheltered accommodation or an even more protective environment. It is a good scheme and I am pleased that we were able today to encourage its continuation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), with whom I cannot possibly compete in terms of cuteness and designer taste in clothing, made an important point about sharing ideas with other countries. There is a lot of interest in other countries with the way

in which we are taking forward our best practice programme and many other energy-efficient measures. Although I am not anything like so distinguished as a member of the Council of Ministers, I will do my best to ensure that that work is continued and that the strategies that we are pursuing are shared with our friends and colleagues abroad, so that we can work towards a global target on energy efficiency and on the reduction of carbon dioxide. If it is not a global target, it has no meaning.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) said how cold it was in that part of Derbyshire. Having visited the area, I know that that is the case. He referred quite relevantly to the large number of older properties in such parts of the country. We must focus our attention on those areas because it is clearly absurd to put the same amount of effort into a city like Milton Keynes, which has a great deal of new property, as into a local authority with older stock and therefore a greater need for improvements in energy efficiency. That is why I was reluctant to see a universal target of 30 per cent. applying to all local authorities, as some would probably need to achieve a great deal more than 30 per cent.
11.30 am
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), in an erudite and well-informed speech—he has long been associated with campaigns for energy efficiency—made several points of a global nature. Even if we were to reject the whole concept of global warming, that would not make the slightest difference to the importance of this Bill. Whether we look at the matter from the point of view of an anti-poverty strategy, or simply as not wasting resources and saving cash, energy efficiency still makes sense. Energy efficiency is a win-win part of the environmental debate, and that is why it makes more sense to concentrate on energy efficiency than on many other possible weapons in our armoury.
In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire emphasised that a very large percentage of global warming gases come from the home, not just from the use of energy to heat and light homes, but also from the use of other equipment in homes. That is why advice on the energy efficiency of equipment is very important. My hon. Friend also referred to 
having a list of reputable traders.
There are some areas of energy efficiency where the take-up is lower than it might otherwise be because people distrust the methodology. One of the most obvious examples of that is cavity wall filling. I hope that the manufacturers and installers of cavity filling will take that message on board and develop something like a guarantee scheme, which would mean a greater reputation for what they are doing and therefore encourage a higher take-up.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) asked me about housing associations. He referred to the Welsh equivalent of the Housing Corporation. He will know that, of all the sectors, the housing association sector has the best record in terms of energy efficiency. That is largely because it has the highest percentage of new build. We have encouraged the housing association movement to go for a minimum energy efficiency in new development. Of course, a great deal is happening in respect of older development. One of the benefits of large-scale voluntary transfers is that the money available to local authorities and housing


associations has been spent on introducing energy efficiency programmes which are very much to the advantage of the tenants and the landlord alike.
In that context, I refer, as I did in Committee, to the Twynham housing association in the constituency of the hon. Member for Christchurch. I had the privilege of visiting that housing association a couple of weeks ago and I saw some of the excellent schemes. I spoke once again to representatives about their record on energy efficiency. I hope that that housing association will be imitated by others.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North also asked about guidance in Wales. My undertaking in Committee did not bind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. However, it is certainly true that the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment are talking to each other about how the guidance can be taken forward. There will be close consultation. The hon. Gentleman knows what normally happens in respect of such matters.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North asked about the effect of reorganisation. As a general point, not just in Wales, but in authorities in Scotland and England, it is not fair to expect authorities to draw up strategies when they face the greatest imposition in terms of other pressures. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not allow authorities to have very much leeway, because we are anxious that they should make progress on developing strategies.

Mr. Dafis: Therefore, it is clear that local authorities will be able to advise an all-Wales organisation such as Tai Cymru, and require it to ensure that energy efficiency is built into its pattern books. Will the new unitary authorities in Wales be drawing up energy conservation plans during their first year of operation after reorganisation?

Mr. Jones: I anticipate that that would be so. As regards housing associations, we shall want to build on what is already happening around the country. In one excellent initiative involving several local authorities, where they are furnishing local housing association grants for developments, they are holding competitions to develop the most energy-efficient developments on those sites.
Other developments under the THERMIE programme will be so energy-efficient that everything else will be put in the shade. I visited one of those in Uttlesford district not long ago, where I believe that the total cost of space heating would be £25 a year. That is achieved by using heat exchangers on a whole terrace to obtain economies of scale.
Those are exciting developments. Although clearly the capital costs are that much higher, if we can reduce those costs a little and encourage that kind of joint provision, that is good news for future development. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North is aware, the challenge is not so much future development as what we do about past development where energy efficiency was not considered.
There is an awful lot of interesting advice around. I opened my post this morning and out fell a leaflet entitled "Bright Ideas Energy Forum" produced by my local authority area. That is an event where people will be able to get together and discuss energy conservation issues and

learn from each other. Many private companies are participating in that. My local authority, Dacorum borough council, has been a pioneer in the area, and I am pleased to praise it as an excellent authority in every regard. It has developed a strategy and it has been implementing it and involving the community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury dwelt on several of the other organisations involved. I was delighted by his tribute to the Energy Efficiency Office. However, he was right to say that we must involve firms that belong to organisations like the Energy Saving Trade Association. We must build on the concept of contract energy management to ensure that buildings are more efficient. If we can attract capital from the private sector, that will make energy efficiency more attractive for local authorities.
We have had a very full debate and I am glad that the House welcomes the amendment. Advice to and from—as the hon. Member for Christchurch said—is the key to ensuring that we succeed in improving energy efficiency.

Mr. Leigh: As I was the only Conservative Member to whose speech my hon. Friend the Minister did not refer—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] If he did, I apologise. However, I repeat my question about my local authority of West Lindsey, which is a very small local authority. My hon. Friend dealt with the funding of local authorities, and he seemed to intimate that there were savings that could accrue to local authorities. He will be aware, however, that there is still a cost resource for local authorities in producing reports. Will he give a commitment on behalf of the Government that no extra costs will be imposed on small local authorities such as West Lindsey district council in drawing up the reports which, for such authorities, are a major expense?

Mr. Jones: Much will depend on where my hon. Friend's local authority stands in the pecking order in terms of what it has already done. As I have explained to hon. Members who have taken a long-standing interest in the subject, the Department has developed as part of the housing investment programme allocation system a requirement for local authorities to do an audit of their stock and to present an energy efficiency strategy. Many local authorities will need to do very little in addition to what they have already done. The very best will already be there, and over a period they will simply have to move through the various layers to achieve the energy efficiency savings that we ask of them.
Whether my hon. Friend's local authority is in the good, bad or indifferent category, I do not know. Perhaps he would like to come and discuss that with me and I can tell him, within the privacy of four walls, whether his local authority is with the goodies or the baddies. If it is among the goodies, it has no reason to fear that the requirement will do anything other than enhance its reputation and the energy efficiency of the homes that it owns and the other homes in its area, and win it much good will from people who are sometimes hard pressed by heating costs.
I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 14, after 'means,' insert '—(a)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also No. 4, in page 1, line 16, at end insert `, or
(b) a mobile home, that is—

(i) in England and Wales or Scotland, a caravan within the meaning of Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (disregarding the amendment made by section 13(2) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968) which is a dwelling for the purposes of Part I or II of the Local Government Finance Act 1992,
(ii) in Northern Ireland, a caravan within the meaning of the Caravans Act (Northern Ireland) 1963 which is a dwelling-house for the purposes of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977.'.

Mr. Jones: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Christchurch has added her name to amendment No. 4. I am glad that the spirit of co-operation that has prevailed throughout our consideration of the Bill is continuing. However, I am sure that all Members present will welcome some explanation of what has led to this definition.
Amendment No. 3 is purely a drafting amendment, and is necessary to identify the fact that the original definition of residential accommodation that has appeared on most versions of the Bill since our discussions started is only the first of two sub-definitions, which enables fuller account to be taken of mobile homes. The substantive amendment is amendment No. 4, which follows up the commitment I made in Committee to examine the best way of incorporating the hon. Lady's specific request to have, within the definition of residential accommodation, a reference to mobile homes.
From time to time, I come across mobile home sites and it is clear, without the need for detailed inspections, that many of the homes on those sites are fairly energy-inefficient. It seems sensible to try to involve local authorities in getting such homes up to scratch, in addition to using the HEES grants that are, of course, already available to owners of mobile homes.
As I said in Committee, I have no objection in principle to such homes being covered, and it seems only right and proper that they should be included in a local authority's strategy. We found, however, that it was not as simple as it first appeared to produce a suitable definition. We also had to consider how best to include such homes in Northern Ireland, where relevant legislation is different from that in Great Britain. Nevertheless, the amendment, based on existing legal definitions, in which the definition of a mobile home is broadly speaking the same as that for a caravan, should meet the hon. Lady's wishes.
The amendment extends the legal definition of residential accommodation in the Bill to include, for Great Britain, caravans as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. The definition now proposed covers any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another. Hon. Members may be interested to learn that railway rolling stock and tents are specifically excluded from the definition?—

Mr. Fabricant: May I ask my hon. Friend not about rolling stock but about whether he has given any thought to extending the scope of the Bill to cover canal narrow boats and houseboats?

Mr. Jones: No, I have not, but perhaps during the debate I should. However, I hope that I shall not be pressed too hard to include tents and rolling stock.
Additionally, the caravans within the definition must be dwellings for the purposes of council tax. That will enable an energy conservation authority to identify easily mobile homes that can be regarded as permanently sited, and for which records will be available from the valuation lists.
Section 13(2) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which is referred to in the amendment, deals with large twin unit caravans. Those, again, are structures designed or adapted for human habitation, but are composed of not more than two sections and are capable of being designed to be assembled on site, and when assembled are physically capable of being moved by road from one place to another. Whatever the reasons for excluding them from other legislation, it is clearly right that those large and relatively immobile structures should be within the scope of the Bill.
The position in Northern Ireland is slightly different. References to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Local Government Finance Act 1992 do not extend to Northern Ireland. We therefore had to find some other legal definition which could ensure that coverage extended to Northern Ireland. As a consequence it is necessary to refer to Northern Ireland's equivalent legislation—the Caravans Act (Northern Ireland) 1963 and the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. These two pieces of legislation provide for exactly the same coverage as in England, Scotland and Wales. I have no reason to believe that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which will act as the energy conservation authority for Northern Ireland, will have any difficulty in identifying the types of mobile homes that we want to cover.
The amendments should ensure that mobile homes designed for human habitation and used as reasonably permanent residential accommodation are not excluded from consideration when an authority draws up its energy conservation reports. The resultant definition of residential accommodation is, as I am sure hon. Members present will agree, short and concise.
There was a danger of the Bill's becoming too unwieldy, and possibly unworkable, if we had, for example, attempted to list all relevant residential accommodation. The list would surely have produced more lines of text than the Bill itself, and that would have been unnecessary and possibly unworkable, for reasons similar to those cited earlier in connection with the amendment concerning businesses. There is always a danger that specifically naming items for inclusion implies that everything else may be excluded.
I believe that the definition now proposed for residential accommodation is the right one, and should provide an energy conservation authority with absolutely no difficulty in identifying the type of properties to be covered by the Bill. The specific reference to mobile homes deals with a small but important category, and I hope it will reassure the hon. Lady's constituents who live in such properties, and indeed all residents of such properties, that they have no reason to be concerned about how they will fare under the provisions of the Bill.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Mrs. Maddock: I especially welcome amendments Nos. 3 and 4. As the Minister said, I raised the subject with him in Committee and I am grateful for his detailed attention to the matter.
My interest in the subject stems both from my experience as a member of the all-party mobile homes group and from my constituency interest. I have many mobile homes—or park homes, as they are often called—in my constituency. Only last week I presented an award for one of the best kept parks—Oak Tree Farm park in my constituency—and earlier this week I opened the park homes exhibit at the Ideal Home exhibition.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Why, in that case, were mobile homes and caravans not included in the Bill in the first place? Could the hon. Lady also give a measured response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) about insulating canal boats, and whether they should be covered by the Bill?

Mrs. Maddock: I was surprised that we got away so lightly in the debate on amendment No. 2 when I saw that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who usually wants to put a spanner in the works, was here. To answer the first part of his question, the omission was probably an oversight on the part of many people. We tried to get the definition of a residential property right, and I spent considerable time in the Private Bill Office and in talking to DOE officials.
Many hon. Members may not realise how much time and energy is taken up not by the talk that goes on in the Chamber but by discussing with experts the best way of achieving our ends. We have continued to talk about the best way to define residential properties, and I hope that we have got that right now.
The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire may not realise the fact, but I have a special interest in canal boats. For 30 years I have travelled on such boats on many of the canals in this country, including those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. No doubt it would be most helpful and useful to people who live on those boats if the Bill covered them, but if it would hold up the Bill's passage, perhaps we should leave that for another day.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: rose—

Mrs. Maddock: I can see that the Minister would like to comment.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Lady will know that, in an entirely different capacity, I was a member of the all-party waterways group. The British Waterways Bill includes provisions for boat standards to be laid down. Hon. Members who are interested in that matter might like to pursue it with British Waterways as a part of its licensing procedures.

Mrs. Maddock: I am grateful to the Minister for that information, and I would be happy to support any efforts made in that direction.
Many of my constituents who live in park homes and mobile homes have problems with ever-rising bills and outgoings of all sorts, despite the fact that mobile homes are often some of the smallest homes. As we are tackling energy inefficiency in the Bill—many of the older mobile homes are among the most inefficient when it comes to energy—it is clearly right to include that category of

residential property in the Bill. It also gives a very useful way of targeting many elderly people who are on low incomes.
In many ways, I believe that mobile homes should be easier to insulate than some homes built in traditional ways. I have heard about the problems people have had with insulating cavity walls, and so on. It makes sense to include mobile homes, and they are a useful extra target within the Bill.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister and his civil servants for their strenuous efforts to include the measure. I look forward to continued inventive contributions from Conservative Members on this matter, which is open to a great deal of invention, but I urge all Members to support this amendment for the sake of constituents who are living in the type of home which is perhaps the worst insulated.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I have the privilege to represent a seaside constituency, and many of my hon. Friends will be well aware that many mobile home dwellers live permanently in such accommodation, particularly in seaside resorts. I welcome the Government amendment, and I am sorry that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) pointed out—it was not in the Bill originally. The amendment fulfils the commitment which my hon. Friend the Minister made in Committee, and that is widely welcomed by my hon. Friends.
There was some murmuring by hon. Members following the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) about canal boats. Although my hon. Friend has a good sense of humour, the fact is that he raised a fair and pertinent point. While many people enjoy canal boats for recreational activities at weekend and on annual holidays, many people do live in them. I recognise, however, the difficulties of drafting an amendment that would include those individuals, but nevertheless I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister about the efforts that he has made in drafting this amendment. The amendment will cover England, Scotland, Wales and—most notably—Northern Ireland, where different rules apply.
All too often I have heard disparaging remarks—although not in this House—about those who live in mobile homes, but such homes do provide a permanent residence for many people. There are many more people who find that they live in them on a semi-permanent basis. As long as they are covered by the points in amendment No. 4, I see no reason why they should be disfranchised in any way from energy conservation.
The introduction of VAT on gas and electricity—while not done first and foremost for its revenue-raising capabilities, but to cut emissions—means that it is now more important to institute energy efficiency measures in permanent and mobile homes. Without this amendment, my constituents and hundreds, if not thousands, of others would not have the opportunity to be part of the energy conservation schemes which local authorities will be expected to fulfil.
The nature of mobile homes—particularly those in seaside resorts—is such that, while those who live in them may enjoy some warm and sunny weather in summer, they are open for much of the time to the elements and to poor weather. Regrettably, in the United Kingdom—whether one is in Christchurch, in Southport or in the constituency of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute


(Mrs. Michie)—we have too much rain. Those who live in mobile homes in seaside resorts can be subjected to wind and, at times, to gales.
The opportunity for those people to have grants to insulate their properties—whether by pipe lagging, roof lagging or draught insulation—is very important. I find it rather surprising that that type of home was left out of the original Bill, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) suggested that she had spoken at great length with mobile home owners.

Mrs. Maddock: I hoped that I had made it clear that the measure was not included in the first place in a spirit of co-operation and in the hope of getting something on the statute book. Considerable time was given to discussing what the definition of a residential home should be, and hon. Members are lucky—as the Minister said—that we do not have a very long definition. The hon. Gentleman will know that the opportunity exists in Committee to get the Bill rather more as one would want it. That is why I asked the Minister about this amendment, and I hope that it will now get on the statute book.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying that point. She has conceded a great deal, because the Bill will not impose on local authorities a duty to set out a specific 30 per cent. improvement in domestic energy savings. That is a major concession, and it is likely to ensure that the Bill passes into law. The more advisory approach which the Bill will have—it will not have the teeth which the hon. Lady had originally intended—is important. I welcome the point that she has just made, and the advisory nature of a target of 30 per cent. is particularly important.
To return to the amendment, if we were to leave out mobile home dwellers, we would be disfranchising a significant proportion of the population. While there are relatively few mobile home dwellers in my constituency, those people have just as much right to be subject to energy conservation reports. I welcome the Government amendments, although for obvious reasons I shall not deal with amendment No. 3 which is merely a drafting measure. I welcome the commitment made by my hon. Friend the Minister in bringing forward this amendment which will improve the Bill considerably and which certainly underlines the commitment that my hon. Friend made in Committee.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) expresses surprise that mobile homes were not originally included in the Bill. I am not surprised. It is most unfortunate that most mobile home owners find themselves disfranchised in so much legislation, including fundamental legislation such as landlord and tenant protection measures. Most mobile homes are not mobile. Many are in parks and do not have wheels attached to them. They are as immobile as any other home.
I am pleased that the amendment has been tabled. I should like to see the spirit of involving mobile homes in legislation extended at some time in the future to landlord and tenant legislation.
Energy conservation is a two-way equation. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, there is the use of efficient products in the home such as efficient lighting, washing

machines and so on. We seek to maximise the efficacy of a device while minimising the amount of energy that it uses. The other side of the equation is minimising the amount of heat or energy loss.
12 noon
Those of us who have done our O-level physics—perhaps some of us have even done A-level physics—know that energy, and in particular heat energy, is lost through convection, conduction and radiation. If ever there were a case of a particular environment losing heat through conduction, convection and radiation, it is the so-called mobile home.
A third part of the equation is ventilation. It is all very well insulating a home or mobile home to ensure that energy is not lost through convection. We must also ensure that there is no potential danger to the inhabitants of the home from insufficient or inefficient ventilation. That point particularly applies to mobile homes. That is why the energy conservation authorities could find their work cut out for them when it comes to advising mobile home owners. Such people have specific problems that need to be tackled. It is right and proper that they should be included in the Bill.
I mentioned narrow boats and house boats in an intervention. The matter was subsequently referred to by my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I find it surprising that house boats have not been included in the scope of the Bill. Hon. Members will know that I have particularly attractive waterways in my constituency. The British Waterways Board took me on one of its narrow boats along the canal in my constituency near Shugborough.
If I may do so without moving too far away from the amendment, I should like to put in a quick plug for Shugborough and the narrow boat waterway near the home of the Earl of Lichfield. It is an attractive area in which to own a narrow boat. The point is that many people live on narrow boats and houseboats—for example on the River Thames. They, too, should have access to the advice which will be available from the energy conservation authorities if the Bill becomes law. Such people have the same problems as mobile home owners.
Another specific point is of prime importance. I have already mentioned the danger to mobile home owners of lack of ventilation. Although many people heat their homes with electric storage heaters or gas central heating, many people in mobile homes and, dare I say it, houseboats and canal boats heat their homes with paraffin heaters. Hon. Members who have ever been on a canal boat, lived in a caravan or been on holiday in a caravan will know that paraffin heaters are potentially very dangerous. I hope that the energy conservation authorities will make a point of advising mobile home owners on more efficient and safer forms of heating.
I will not press the need to expand the amendment to include narrow boats and houseboats. If I did, the whole amendment might fall. That is certainly not my intention. However, just as I hope that legislation in years to come such as landlord and tenant, commonhold and leasehold legislation might encompass protection for mobile home owners, so I hope that the Bill when it becomes an Act might be amended in future to include people who live on narrow boats and houseboats. It is an omission that needs to be remedied. Having said that, the amendment is wise and timely and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for tabling the amendment. When I first looked at the Bill, I was taken aback to see that mobile homes were excluded from it. The Bill has been promoted by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), who comes from, one might say, the caravan belt of England. Whereas in Southampton there are not many caravans, I should have thought that the hon. Lady would be well aware of caravans and would have included mobile homes in her Bill. She explained that the problem was one of definition of mobile homes.
I notice that the amendment would insert "a mobile home". It is not beyond the wit of anyone who introduces a Bill in the House to put a full stop after "mobile home" and hope that someone somewhere will subsequently define it, as my hon. Friend the Minister has done in an extremely able fashion.
My constituency of Gravesham in Kent is not one of the greatest holiday destinations in the country. Nevertheless, I recommend it to hon. Members, because it is a great riverside borough. We have many historical associations. Pocahontas died there. Charles Dickens lived up the road. General Gordon looked after our fort before departing to deal with other matters in Khartoum.
As there is not a great flood of tourists into Gravesham, one would not at first notice caravans around my borough, just as the hon. Member for Christchurch seems not to have noticed mobile homes around her constituency. As I know my constituency well, I know that there are quite a number of mobile homes—for instance, at Southfields Shaw in the parish of Meopham, where there are sizeable caravans, which, although mobile, are effectively immobilised by the residents.
Residents of mobile homes have considerable concerns about energy conservation, just as any householder does. The energy conservation schemes that we have discussed this morning are applicable to occupants of mobile homes. It does not require a great stretch of the imagination to understand why the take-up of home energy conservation grants and so on is low. Although an amateur in the matter of mobile homes, I have nevertheless noticed that most, if not all, do not have lofts in which owners can crawl around to put down the three inches of material to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) referred. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we need more than three inches in lofts, which are not to be found in caravans.
On a more serious point, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to give some thought to applying home renovation grants to caravans. He might consider that in his deliberations and the review of home renovation grants that he is to carry out.
In conclusion, I certainly support the amendment. I admit that the definition is immensely short, in the light of what the Minister said. I, for one, have great confidence in his drafting powers and believe that the amendments that he has tabled fully cover the matter. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Christchurch has followed them up rapidly and given them her support.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Homcastle (Mr. Leigh), the more I hear the mutual congratulation that has been endemic throughout the debate, especially that on this

amendment, the more uneasy I become. When I read the terms of the amendment, I also became increasingly uneasy.
My constituency is one of the most beautiful in the United Kingdom. As a result, at the end of the second world war and in the 1950s, people poured out of the black country and Birmingham and took advantage of the lax planning legislation by erecting mobile homes in the Walshes, Little Lakes, Redstone, and Kingsland caravan parks in my constituency and effectively living in them permanently—as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) said—albeit that they are in the anomalous situation of having to leave their homes for one month in every year to comply with planning legislation. In due course, we must consider that.
It is estimated that there are upwards of 4,000 caravans and mobile homes in my constituency and, although I accept the argument that constituents who live in such accommodation should not be disfranchised as regards their home energy efficiency needs, I am very concerned that the amendment takes little account of the enormous extra cost that will be imposed on local authorities, such as Wyre Forest district council—which is already spending about £2 million above its standard spending assessment and therefore has to be capped—which will have to look into the home insulation and the energy needs of caravan and mobile home owners.
Although he is not in his place, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) was absolutely correct to say that a large proportion of the assumptions that have been made under home insulation legislation, home energy efficiency schemes and the grant regimes do not apply to mobile homes and caravans. For instance, I am told that the maximum grant available for loft insulation under the home energy efficiency scheme is £198.70. Many people who live in mobile homes do not have lofts, so such grants are not available to them. The maximum grant available for draught proofing is £128.50, but that also does not apply to many mobile homes to the same extent that it applies to conventional homes.
I am worried that, within the existing grant regime, there will be no possibility of fulfilling the expectations that will be aroused among my constituents who live in mobile homes about potential energy efficiency improvements that can be made as a result of the surveys. We shall have a triumph of good intentions over achievement.
As has been rightly said, the insulation problems of mobile home owners are far greater than those of people in conventional homes. They will expect something to he done about that. Many of them live on very low incomes and will be eligible for the grants, but they will be told that the maximum grant available under the HEES is £305. Given the amount of work that is required for many of those draughty, poorly insulated and rather elderly caravans and mobile homes, with respect, £305 will go absolutely nowhere.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my hon. Friend consider that argument carefully? It seems to me that the amount of money that he mentioned would go a considerable way to assist owners of mobile homes for whom those are their permanent residence. I accept that the Bill will raise expectations that we may not be able to meet—it is a great trait of the Liberal Democrats—but the amount of money


that he mentioned would, if it were available, go quite a long way towards protecting someone in a small mobile home against the elements to which I referred in my remarks.

Mr. Coombs: My hon. Friend has obviously not seen the condition of many of the mobile homes in my constituency. I am sorry to have to say that not only will £305 not go far towards producing the sort of results that we would want for constituents in mobile homes but, more fundamentally, the categories under which the HEES operates are not appropriate to mobile homes—for instance, loft insulation and draught proofing.

Mr. Hendry: The gist of my hon. Friend's argument appears to be that because people will not be able to do everything that they might wish with the grants, it is better that they should do nothing. That does not seem terribly helpful to the people whom we are seeking to assist.

Mr. Coombs: If we approve the amendment and thereby apply energy surveys to mobile homes and caravans, it is only fair on those of my constituents who live in them that we consider the grant regime to ensure that it is relevant to their conditions. If we do not do so, we shall arouse their expectations, and inevitably fail them.
The Minister is slotting the amendment into the Bill very late in the day. Is he prepared to review the way in which the HEES works in so far as it applies to mobile homes, to ensure that it is appropriate and that the overall grant available is sufficient, given the significant energy needs of people living in mobile homes compared with those of people living in conventional houses?

Mr. Merchant: I shall be brief, because some rather heavy weather is being made of this amendment. I can see the reason for it—to enable the Bill to cover as many types of residential accommodation as possible and, if it is to have any meaning, it should be extended as widely as possible. From the point of view of principle, and the technical point of view, it is sensible to include the provision and the proper definition.
Having said that, I hardly think that the next time that the world's Heads of State meet to discuss global climate change they will be exercised by whether mobile homes in Britain are fully insulated. I doubt that it makes that much difference to total carbon dioxide emissions.
As for the cost of including mobile homes in the assessments that local authorities will have to carry out, I hardly think that that will make much difference, either. Most of the surveys carried out under the provisions of the Bill will be based on samples. I imagine that the marginal cost of including mobile homes in that sample is so minimal as not to show on any set of accounts.
I have two brief reasons for supporting the amendment. The first is one that some hon. Members have mentioned, but it deserves repetition. Mobile homes are some of the most energy-wasteful types of residence around. Many are old and need to be examined for the sake of the occupants to ensure that the most modern systems are in place. It need not necessarily cost a lot of money to put into effect remedial work on mobile homes and to bring about a considerable saving in energy costs.
That leads me naturally on to the second point, which is that some of the people who live in mobile homes are among the least well-off in our community. They are the fuel poor in many cases and the elderly, who need greater heat and are therefore paying proportionately far more than they need to, to heat themselves. For that reason, it is important to include mobile homes in the scope of the Bill. Clearly, those people, for their own good, need the best help, advice and remedial measures available to improve their standard of living.
Mobile homes are included in the energy efficiency scheme so it seems sensible that they should be included in the Bill. There needs to be a clear definition of mobile homes because we do not want to include people's holiday caravans; that would be going into the realms of the absurd. The definition sensibly draws a line between a mobile home that is a residence and one that is not. For those reasons, I support the amendment, and I hope that it is incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Leigh: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), I think that the amendment, although sensible in itself, begins to shed some true light on the Bill. It is a perfectly unexceptionable Bill. It is a Bill about good intentions, but it will achieve virtually nothing. That can be seen in terms of mobile homes. My hon. Friend made an excellent speech, in which he explained some of the problems that will occur, especially with regard to mobile homes.
I represent a rural constituency in quite a nice part of the country where there are many mobile homes, so I am well aware of the problems. There are mobile homes especially in sites along the River Trent, around Torksey, which tend to be newer mobile homes. At Binbrook on the Wolds, near where I live, there is a large site for mobile homes; some are quite old. As my hon. Friend said, some of the insulation problems of the old mobile homes are great. People do not have to produce a great deal of heat to keep themselves cosy in their mobile home; they are not heating the atmosphere to any great extent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) said, the Heads of State at Rio will not be very concerned about the heat produced. However, an awful amount of heat is being wasted.
I can imagine the officials in West Lindsey district council, to whom I have referred several times, racking their brains. How could they have the expertise or knowledge, without expending considerable resources, to determine how to solve the problems of mobile home dwellers in Binbrook, who have homes where draughts come in and out? Even if the officials did determine how to solve the problems, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest asked, what grants would be available? By definition, none of the mobile homes has a loft, a point that has been made once or twice in this short debate.
Motions will be gone through at the guild hall in West Lindsey. Reports will be written and committees will sit. Many of my mobile home owners are on low incomes. If they were not on low incomes, they would presumably live in a proper home; I am not trying to denigrate mobile homes. However, many people who live in mobile homes would rather live in a proper home. Other mobile home dwellers, especially around Torksey, are retired people who live there for two or three months a years.


Mobile homes are a cheap form of accommodation in the summer months. Retired people can then spend time in the south of Spain in the winter. It is very pleasant. Such people will not be very worried about what the worthy officials in West Lindsey are saying as they produce their earnest reports which, no doubt, will gather dust. Even if the reports suggest anything useful, grants will not be available to do anything very useful.
We go round in circles. We shall end up with a Bill which the House will pass, presumably, in a couple of hours after we have concluded lengthy discussions on it. Nothing very useful will be done for the poor people sitting in draughty mobile homes in Binbrook.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My first point relates to guidance under clause 4. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that the building regulations are about to be amended so that the builder or architect of all new houses will be required to furnish an efficiency rating—a standard assessment procedure or SAP rating—to which the other forms of energy efficiency scales can be converted.
There is, however, no such requirement for caravans. That is an omission. When one buys a new mobile home, one will not be able to get any idea of its energy efficiency. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider, when he issues guidance to local authorities, whether they could give an idea of the scale of energy efficiency that mobile homes should be expected to reach. Clearly, they will not be able to reach the same standard as domestic dwellings. It might, however, be useful for my hon. Friend to say what standard he expects.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend think that there is a corollary here? My hon. Friend the Minister spoke about the British Waterways Board possibly setting down standards and grading the energy efficiency of canal boats and houseboats. Could there not be a similar scheme, as my hon. Friend said, for mobile homes?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that intervention because it brings me to my second point—the question of canal boats. I was a member of the Committee which sat for well over a year studying the British Waterways Bill. As my hon. Friend the Minister made clear, the Committee spent days and weeks on the question of design standards. One of the things about canal boats about which the Committee was concerned—this applies to caravans as well—was fire safety. It would be remiss of us, when debating the amendment at such length, not to mention fire safety. The temptation in energy efficiency terms may be to seal or block windows so that they cannot be opened. That could create a considerable fire hazard—

Mr. Fabricant: And fumes.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: As my hon. Friend says, fumes are also a problem. If there is no adequate ventilation in a caravan or canal boat, there can be a build-up of carbon monoxide and people can be poisoned and killed while they sleep. There have been numerous instances. Fire safety is important. A balance must be struck between energy efficiency and fire safety in mobile homes.
My local authority has taken a rigorous attitude to fire safety in mobile homes, much to the distress of many of my constituents who have added porches and wooden

garden sheds. My hon. Friend the Minister will need to give guidance to local authorities about the level of energy efficiency that they would expect for mobile homes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) commented on the level of grants available for energy efficiency schemes. Although £300 may not seem a lot of money in terms of energy efficiency measures, some measures that can be taken have a dramatic effect for a fairly cheap price. For example, an insulation jacket on a hot water cylinder can dramatically cut the energy costs of heating water.
I plead with my hon. Friend not to be too dismissive of the small levels of grant available, because for those living in the worst conditions in mobile homes, or in older housing stock, such grants can be a lifeline. I thoroughly endorse the home energy efficiency scheme and I also praise my right hon. Friend for extending that scheme. I hope that some mobile home owners will be able to take advantage of it.

Mr. Hendry: The outside world looking in on our debate today would be bemused and, indeed, impressed by the extent to which hon. Members can talk about mobile homes, narrow boats and other such places where people live. Perhaps the most useful fact gleaned this morning is that General Gordon started his life and Queen Pocahontas ended her days in mobile homes in Gravesend. Hon. Members may not previously have been aware of that.
The key to the amendment is that there is a fundamental difference between those homes that are relatively immobile and those that are mobile. It is reasonable to extend the provisions of the Bill to cover those that are relatively immobile and are likely to be permanent homes, but it is not reasonable to extend it to cover those homes that are likely to move round all over the place. In that second category I include not just general caravans—there is no reason for the Bill to apply to them—but canal boats. In that sense, I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant).
If the Bill relates to permanent housing stock, some people may live on a canal boat permanently. There is perhaps a difference perhaps between a houseboat and a canal boat. Those which are predominantly used for tourism and leisure and which go up and down canals during the day are not lived in; there is therefore no reason why they should be covered by the Bill.

Mr. Fabricant: I do not agree with the logic of my hon. Friend's argument that a mobile home may not be a permanent one. Some people live permanently on canal boats. What is more relevant to the amendment, Romanies, travellers or whatever they choose to call themselves, live permanently in caravans, but yet are mobile. Is my hon. Friend suggesting, that although those people live permanently in such homes, they should not be included within the scope of the Bill?

Mr. Hendry: A practical difficulty arises because we are considering the requirement of a duty on a local authority. A canal boat or a caravan, which are genuinely mobile, can be easily moved, so it is difficult to expect a local authority to give any guidance on the insulation of such dwellings. One day such a home could be in that


authority's patch; the next day it could be 100 yards outside it and the following week it could be halfway around the country.

Mr. Leigh: One of the problems with the Bill is that resources are not available for its purpose. The House would not support a general audit of individual houses, mobile homes, canal boats or whatever, so only general samples will be taken. I do not believe that a local authority could possibly know where my hon. Friend's canal boat was at any time. The samples taken will be so general and the information gathered so generalised that I suspect that the information received by the local authority, and therefore the information dispersed by it, will be fairly valueless.

Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend has made my point far more eloquently and less confusingly than I had tried to do. Houseboats and canal boats should be excluded from the scope of the Bill because they can move round all over the place. Mobile homes can be included within the Bill because, by their very nature, they will not change site on every other day of the week. A fundamental difference can be made between those types of dwelling.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right to say that the key point is the mobility of caravans and canal boats, should it be deemed to include them within the Bill. The Private Bill Committee considering the British Waterways Bill spent weeks and weeks trying to tighten the licensing system to differentiate precisely between houseboats and pleasure boats. Does my hon. Friend agree that my hon. Friend the Minister could deal with that difference in guidance under clause 4 to include houseboats which are static? In certain parts of London and elsewhere, many people live in such boats permanently, some of them in pretty lowly conditions.

Mr. Hendry: I hope that they are not too lowly, which would presumably mean that they have sunk. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind when he responds to the debate.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. I agree with my hon. Friends that it would be difficult, indeed impossible, for a local authority to conduct an audit of mobile homes, whether they are located on canals, rivers or on land. Surely the main function of the energy conservation authority would be to act as a source of information to which a home owner could go? It is therefore not primarily a burden on the authority to seek out the home owner; it is the home owner who will seek out the authority. Therefore, the restriction to which my hon. Friend referred would not apply.

Mr. Hendry: Nevertheless, there is a difficulty. The owner of the said houseboat, having moved from one council to another council, goes into the council's office the following week, having been into one in a different authority the week before, and asks for some advice. One cannot give people the right to travel throughout the

country, visiting every local authority, asking for advice about insulating their houseboat or caravan and asking for a grant to improve the insulation.

Mr. Fabricant: Why not?

Mr. Hendry: Because the owner would obtain £305 from Mid-Staffordshire and then travel a bit further along the canal and obtain a £305 grant from another council, and would obtain £305 from every authority that has a canal in the country. That becomes unworkable. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his traditional wisdom, will understand that as he reflects on the debate.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) has misunderstood the position. The licensing provisions of British Waterways are clear. A boat that is static and is used for full-time residential use is a houseboat; a canal boat that moves is a pleasure boat. There are two different licensing systems.

Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.
There is a second key aspect to the amendment. The Bill, if it is to be relevant, must relate to what is appropriate housing and appropriate accommodation in different parts of the country. For reasons that I outlined earlier, it becomes evident that we shall not have many mobile homes in High Peak because the hypothermia will be too great, and that there are other parts of the country, such as Christchurch, where a mobile home is a much more favoured form of accommodation. If the Bill is to be applicable to different parts of the country, it is right that what is a typical form of accommodation in each place should be incorporated in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Minister, when replying to the debate about amendment No. 2, said that I was right to note that, in my constituency, there are many small, old houses which, by their nature, will be draughty. He said that that was one of the reasons why the Bill would be important to High Peak. If that is what makes it important to High Peak, the fact that there are many mobile homes in other constituencies in other parts of the country is a reason why they should be incorporated, to ensure that the Bill is relevant to them.
I regret having to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). My hon. Friend is usually a beacon of common sense and good judgment. This morning he has strayed a little bit from that. His argument that one should not make advice available to people because the grant has been set at a level that will not enable them to do everything is fundamentally flawed.
The £305 to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest referred is the maximum for any form of accommodation, and that £305 will do much more in helping in the insulation of a mobile home, to make a much more fundamental difference to the quality of life of the people living there than it could if it were spent on insulating a two or three-bedroomed house. It is fundamentally wrong to rule people out on the grounds that they would not be able to do all the work they wish, because it means that many people who can benefit from the grant system would not be able to do so.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I should make it plain, in the nicest possible way, that what may be flawed is the analysis of my argument by my hon. Friend the Member


for High Peak (Mr. Hendry). My argument was not that we should reject amendment No. 3, but that, if we make it, there is every reason to say that the HEES should be reconsidered, in terms of the maximum provision that it makes, given the greater needs that the hon. Gentleman has identified for people living in mobile homes and caravans so far as insulation is concerned, and in terms of the detail of its operation. For instance, we mentioned loft insulation and discussed whether that was appropriate for people who live in mobile homes, in which lofts are often significant by their absence.

Mr. Hendry: Self-evidently, if there is no loft, one should not be given loft insulation grants—although undoubtedly there will be Labour authorities around the country who will grant them, because they have provided money for repairing flats that had been knocked down years previously. However, that is in the ambit of local government.
But I think that my hon. Friend's argument remains incorrect. I would be surprised if he were calling for an increase in Government expenditure to extend the home energy efficiency scheme. He is always a beacon of common sense, he is also always a guardian of public expenditure. I do not believe that he would push for a massive increase to extend the scheme—

Mr. Coombs: rose—

Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend may be about to correct me.

Mr. Coombs: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point, but if he looks at the categories available for grant under the scheme, he will see that the scheme applies less potently to people in mobile homes and caravans than to those with conventional houses. We have already agreed on loft insulation; it may well be that the lagging of hot water tanks would be relevant to both sorts of homes, but to a lesser extent to mobile homes. Draught stripping and corking, and improved heating controls, may apply to both sorts of homes. What is not included in the list, but would be needed in mobile homes, is cavity wall insulation. That is most important in a mobile home but is not, as I understand it, allowed for in the home energy efficiency scheme.

Mr. Hendry: I understand my hon. Friend's point. The key is that the grant can make life significantly more comfortable. It can be used to insulate doors and windows to prevent a significant amount of the heat loss that would otherwise occur. The £305 can make a significant contribution to, or cover the full cost of, such work. I accept my hon. Friend's point that the amount will not cover everything, but to suggest that we should not agree to the amendment because it would not allow for everything would be wrong. I understand my hon. Friend's point and I hope that we have, as ever, established some clarity and cohesion between the two of us.

Mr. Fabricant: rose—

Mr. Hendry: I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) wishes to make yet another minor intervention.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me again. I want to clarify two points that

I raised in my earlier interventions. My hon. Friend has said that my argument that a mobile home—albeit a permanent dwelling—should not be included within the scope of the Bill is because a mobile home owner would be able to travel from area to area—my hon. Friend is shaking his head in disagreement, but I think that if he checks Hansard he will see that that is precisely what he said—to obtain grants from different authorities. But clause 6(1) of the Bill states:
Nothing in this Act shall be taken as conferring—

(a) any power to make grants or loans;
(b) any power of entry"

Since my earlier interventions when I was stunned into silence by my hon. Friend's reply, which was as erudite as ever—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am stunning the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) into silence now, as his intervention is far too long. I should also prefer to see the hon. Gentleman's front rather than his back.

Mr. Hendry: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for bringing us back to order.
The point that I was making and which my hon. Friend appears to have misunderstood is that there is a fundamental difference between those homes that are relatively immobile and those which, by definition, are wholly mobile. It is right to differentiate between the two. I believe that those homes which the amendment classifies as mobile homes are pretty static and unlikely to be moved without significant effort—unlike canal boats, which can be moved around the country at will.
We have had a full debate on the subject, which I have pushed significantly further than I intended due to the interventions to which I have sought to respond. I shall leave my contribution there.

Ms Ruddock: I was inclined at the start of the debate not to speak in it, but simply to support the amendment. Clearly, on grounds of social equity, people living in what we all consider to be permanent mobile homes should he entitled to the same services, attention and consideration as those living in more traditional structures. Having heard the debate and the many exchanges between Conservative Members, I feel inclined to say a few words.
I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the sort of information and advice that he believes it will be possible to give to mobile home owners under the Bill's provisions. If people who live in mobile homes are encouraged to think about home insulation and energy efficiency, they may do work themselves which will affect their safety. For example, they may create a fire risk. Local authorities must provide expert advice and gather information about mobile homes because generally they will have little knowledge of the condition of mobile homes in their areas.
My constituency is in the heart of the inner city, where there are only a small number of mobile homes. However, when I lived in the Newbury constituency a significant number of people lived in that kind of accommodation.

Mr. Hendry: On Greenham common?

Ms Ruddock: I assure the Minister that I am not referring to those who were camped on Greenham


common in tents or in other accommodation. I visited many of the people who lived in mobile homes in designated areas and I became aware of the poor levels of insulation in those dwellings. Many such people had low disposable incomes and were deeply concerned about the high fuel charges that they were forced to pay.
Proper attention must be given to those who live in mobile homes. Local authorities must understand their peculiar situation and they must provide expert advice to allow those people to join in the existing energy efficiency schemes or those which may be introduced in the future.
I suspect that it may be more difficult to provide the appropriate assistance to those people. However, as a number of Conservative Members have said, we should not draw back from providing even a little advice and assistance under the Bill.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: With the leave of the House, I shall speak again.
In a sense, this debate is a re-run of parts of the previous debate. There was no shortage of advice offered to me, to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) or to those who will be affected by the amendment. As the hon. Lady was in and out of the Chamber during the debate, I must inform her that, in addition to her constituency being described as the "Riviera of England", it was called the "caravan belt of England". In the next debate it will no doubt be described as the "Athens of the Dorset coast", or something equally excessive.
The hon. Lady knows that energy conservation is an important issue for those who live in mobile homes. I have enjoyed a long association with the Beech Park site at Wigginton and I am the honorary president of its residents association. I enjoy nothing more than attending the local dance at the Tring football club when I am able to do so.
Quite a number of elderly people and those on low incomes settle in mobile home parks, perhaps as a result of divorce or bereavement, and we are anxious to see practical advice and assistance provided to them. The hon. Member for Deptford asked me what sort of advice would be provided. Of course, there will be a range of advice—some of which can be provided at no cost.
For example, advice about closing curtains at night applies to those who live in mobile homes and permanent dwellings. I keep ramming home that point, but I still see large numbers of uncurtained windows at night. Advice can be provided about energy efficient equipment that people can buy. The home energy efficiency scheme applies equally to mobile home owners and to those who live in permanent structures.
Mobile home owners can take advantage of that scheme in the form of draught proofing and tank lagging. I accept that, as they do not have lofts, they cannot take advantage of loft insulation schemes. However, I am happy to review the HEES scheme to see whether other appropriate measures might applied to mobile homes, whose needs are different from those of other dwellings.
I have had discussions with a number of local authorities which are concerned about the concentration of mobile home sites in their areas. In the context of our overall review of home renovation policy, I shall also

re-examine the minor works assistance grants to see whether they are relevant to the problems raised by many hon. Members.
We should not labour under the misapprehension that all mobile homes are in seaside towns. The hon. Member for Deptford said that there were one or two in her constituency. They are, indeed, widely scattered around the country but nothing in the Bill affects the planning regime. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) that it is in no sense a separate recognition of the status of such homes. However, I think that hon. Members generally believe that those who have mobile homes as their permanent residence should be able to get advice and assistance.
I now deal with boats, in which of course I have an interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) hit the nail on the head when he referred to fire safety standards and the licensing regime applied by British Waterways to boats on its waters. That system is, of course, replicated on other waterways.
I do not think that most canal boats are energy inefficient because of their wooden structure and the fact that their windows are small in comparison with the general surface area. I suspect that they might turn out to be more energy efficient than many permanent and non-moored homes. In any case, it is simply not possible to apply the Bill's provisions to them. How is a local authority to draw up a strategy for boats which might well move from place to place during the year? When they retire, many pensioners choose to spend a few years sailing around the country, spending a few weeks here and there. There are practical difficulties in including boats in the Bill's provisions.
In general, the House has welcomed the inclusion of mobile homes. I hope that what I have said about the grant regime will have assisted hon. Members to develop an enthusiasm that some did not have before and a belief that the Bill is about achievement, not fine words. That has always been my approach to the Bill. I told the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) some time ago that I hoped to do better than his Bill, and that is what we are trying to do.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 1, line 16, at end insert ', or

(b) a mobile home, that is—

(i) in England and Wales or Scotland, a caravan within the meaning of Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (disregarding the amendment made by section 13(2) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968) which is a dwelling for the purposes of Part I or II of the Local Government Finance Act 1992,
(ii) in Northern Ireland, a caravan within the meaning of the Caravans Act (Northern Ireland) 1963 which is a dwelling-house for the purposes of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977.'.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Clause 2

ENERGY CONSERVATION REPORTS

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'the authority's policy' and insert


`any policy of the authority'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 6, in page 2, line 14, leave out from `power' to 'in' in line 15.
No. 7, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'that' and insert `any'.

Mr. Jones: These are minor amendments in fulfilment of an undertaking given in Committee. They would make it clear that an energy conservation authority was required to include in its report a statement of any policy it had for taking into account the personal circumstances of any person in deciding whether to exercise any power in connection with the energy conservation measures set out in its report rather than merely a statement of its policy for taking account of personal circumstances in exercising any power to make grants or loans. Clause 2 as it stands requires such a statement only in relation to powers to make grants or loans.
Amendment No. 5 would broaden the language of clause 2(3)(c) to ensure that a report included a statement of any policy that an authority had for taking into account an individual's personal circumstances in deciding whether to exercise any power in connection with energy conservation measures. That is a consequence of broadening the provision to go beyond powers to make grants and loans.
Amendment No. 6 would remove the specific statement of powers to make grants and loans, thus ensuring that the amendment was more wide–ranging, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) wished.
Amendment No. 7 would further widen the provision to cover the personal circumstances of any person, not just a person to whom a grant or loan was made. Of course, it may be the personal circumstances of someone other than the householder to which an authority would wish to give particular consideration—for example, where a household includes someone with disabilities, or a frail, elderly person.
Energy conservation measures can be particularly important to those with above average heating needs because of age, disability or illness, and I know that many organisations representing such people support the Bill. The HEES programme has always been directed at those with special needs because of low income. I am pleased that it is now available to all aged over 60.
Like other hon. Members, I have received a large volume of correspondence in relation to the Bill—one letter this morning was addressed to me as the Chancellor of the Exchequer—citing the benefits that it will bring, particularly to the elderly. Elderly people can be particularly daunted by the prospect of identifying and arranging for energy-saving measures in their homes, but, as we all know, there may be comparatively simple measures that could be taken that could contribute significantly to their health and comfort.
On a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill, hon. Members referred to their concerns about the effect of cold homes on elderly people. I hope that authorities will look particularly carefully at what they can do to target advice and information to those who most need it, as well as including in their reports appropriate policies for taking personal circumstances into account when exercising their powers in connection with energy efficiency measures.
By requiring a statement of any policy for giving priority to take account of personal circumstances, the amendments will ensure that local authorities address the question of whether to give priority, where their powers permit, even if they have not had such a policy in the past. What the nature of any policy should be will, of course, be a judgment for each authority to make, but requiring a statement of relevant policies in energy conservation reports will ensure that the judgment is out in the open.
I hope that the amendments will ensure that the case for giving priority to those with particular needs, who may in the past have been defined as "fuel poor", is addressed specifically by each energy conservation authority. Resources are, of course, finite and judgments will have to be made as to where they can do most good, but the amendments should ensure that proper consideration is given to the needs of the poor, the elderly, the sick and people with disabilities.
I believe that the amendments will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) and, indeed, the whole House, and that they meet the concerns that she expressed in Committee. I commend them to the House.

Mrs. Maddock: I welcome the amendments. I welcome amendment No. 6 enthusiastically, but am a little unsure as to why in Committee the Minister's original new clause referred only to local authorities' policies for taking personal circumstances into account when dealing with grants and loans, and not in dealing with other aspects of policy, such as education and advice. Indeed, I expressed concern about that in Committee.
I still have a slight worry about amendment No. 5. I have read it a number of times and have concluded that it can be considered as slightly strengthening or slightly weakening the Bill. It is strengthening if one reads it as extending the scope of the statements on policies of local authorities on targeting people on the basis of personal circumstances, but there is always a slight danger, if one reads it another way, that perhaps it is removing the implication that is currently contained in the Bill—that every energy conservation authority should have such a policy. I welcome the Minister's statement about the amendment, as he has clarified a matter about which I was concerned.
It is important that the amendment is not seen by local councils as letting them off the hook on one of the central contents of their reports, which many supporters of the Bill—local councils and many other organisations—were keen to see in it. If and when the Bill is implemented, I hope that local authorities will have clear policies on how they can target the fuel poor, as that is a matter about which many people, including hon. Members and many of the people who came to London yesterday in support of the Bill, feel strongly.
It is important that the Bill is implemented. I hope that the Minister will be strong on these matters.

1 pm

Mr. Fabricant: I welcome the amendment. Hon. Members will be aware that I am keen on glasnost. I would support a freedom of information Act, albeit combined with a privacy Act. The two are not mutually exclusive: one deals with intrusion into people's personal lives for trivial reasons and the other deals with acquiring information that should be in the public domain.


Quite clearly, the purpose of the amendments is to put the policy of the energy conservation authorities into the public domain. As my hon. Friend the Minister has already said, it is one thing to consider the judgments that the energy conservation authorities might make, but quite another to see the basis on which those judgments are made. We can make that kind of analysis only if the amendments are accepted.
It is tremendously important that the personal circumstances of the people who might benefit from the Bill by receiving advice are taken into account. In an earlier debate, reference was made to extending the scope of the Bill to people who live in mobile homes. Many people who live in mobile homes have restricted personal circumstances. Through the exercise of the amendments, we will be able to see the criteria by which energy conservation authorities will consider the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and others about the peculiar circumstances of people who live in mobile homes. For that reason, I welcome the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 2, line 14, leave out from 'power' to 'in' in line 15.

No. 7, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'that' and insert `any'.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Clause 3

FUNCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN RELATION TO REPORTS

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 5, at end insert—
'(4) The Secretary of State shall from time to time prepare a report on—

(a) the progress made by energy conservation authorities in implementing the measures set out in reports prepared under section 2, and
(b) any steps he has taken pursuant to subsection (2)(b) above, and shall lay any such report before Parliament.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 9, in clause 5, page 3, line 20, leave out 'and (3)' and insert 'to (4)'.

Mr. Jones: Amendment No. 8 would require the Secretary of State from time to time to prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the progress made by energy conservation authorities in implementing the measures set out in their energy conservation reports and on the steps taken by the Secretary of State under subsection 3(2)(b) to assist with, and encourage others to assist with, measures listed in reports.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are consequential.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must point out to the Minister that amendment No. 10 is being dealt with separately.

Mr. Jones: Amendment No. 9 is consequential and it ensures that the new duty would apply to measures in further or modified reports prepared under clause 5.
The amendments also stem from discussions in Committee. I understand the wish of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) that there should be regular

reporting to Parliament of progress made under the Bill's provisions so that authorities' achievements can be judged. I recognise that there will be a desire to make comparisons, and it would be my intention that the form of reports would allow for that.
Hon. Members who served on the Committee which considered the Bill will recall that we had a considerable debate about how energy saving targets should be set. The Committee accepted my view that that could best be done through the guidance to be issued under clause 4. The reports envisaged by the amendments will also enable authorities' success in meeting those targets to be assessed, and this will no doubt be of considerable interest.
I am, however, anxious not to be too bureaucratic and burdensome. I hope, therefore, that reports to be prepared under the new subsection will be able to draw on factual information provided by energy conservation authorities.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Christchurch and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed have added their names to the amendment which incorporates one tabled by them referring to a duty for the Secretary of State to report on the steps that he had taken under clause 3(2)(b).
It is also right that the Secretary of State should be accountable for the steps that he has taken under the Bill, and I see no difficulty in including in a report a statement of what he has done under subsection 3(2)(b) to assist with, or to encourage others to assist with, measures set out in energy conservation authorities' reports. However, it is the implementation of the measures set out in the reports energy conservation authorities will draw up under clause 2, already covered by amendment No. 6, which will be the key to the achievement of the Bill's aims.
In drawing up guidance under clause 4 we shall need to consider what form the reports by the Secretary of State should take so that we can harmonise that with what authorities are asked to prepare. We shall of course need to discuss with the local authority associations how monitoring and reporting of progress should best be undertaken.
Obvious possibilities are progress towards the energy saving target adopted by the authority in accordance with the guidance that I have undertaken that we shall give on this point, or progress in improving the SAP rating of properties. Encouraging progress is being made towards developing more streamlined SAP ratings, which should in turn make low-cost housing stock profiling easier.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Is my hon. Friend saying that local authorities across the board will be set the objective of achieving a 30 per cent. saving, or will the authorities be able to set their own targets?

Mr. Jones: No, we shall set a target, but clearly, if a local authority has achieved a great deal in the past, or if its stock was already of a high energy efficiency character, it can perfectly well say to us that different criteria should apply in its different circumstances. Equally, we may wish to move the targets over a period of years according to the direction in which our international commitments lead us; or we may wish to set targets in terms not of percentages but of minimum SAP ratings, or of percentages of stock below a certain level. That is the reasoning behind the flexibility of approach. We are still trying to achieve a target, but not in quite such a rigid way as was originally envisaged.


Looking at SAP ratings has the advantage that it .concentrates on what is important—the performance of the building in converting the energy used into useful heat and light.
Whatever the outcome of discussions with the local authority associations, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch in Committee that some form of comparison would be desirable. We must, however, be cautious of creating a major bureaucratic task. It must be borne in mind that every energy conservation authority in the United Kingdom will provide reports to the Secretary of State.
A report to Parliament based on detailed and necessarily subjective analysis of each one would not, I suggest, be of much use to the House, and drawing it up would not be the best use of the time of officials in the energy efficiency office in my Department. I believe that a succinct overview of the national situation, built up from objective evidence from individual authorities and enabling their performances to be compared, will meet the legitimate aspirations of Parliament and public for information on what is being achieved.
We must not forget, either, that such action will be useful in relation to our international obligations, such as those arising from the Earth summit in Rio. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Eggar) made an important announcement last week following a review of the prospects for future energy use in the United Kingdom and of associated emissions of carbon dioxide.
That showed that the United Kingdom can be confident of meeting its commitment to reduce carbon emissions, and indeed that we can expect to exceed it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that although there have been some changes in the relative contributions expected in the various elements of the climate change programme, we must continue to seek further cost-effective ways of reducing carbon emissions.
Energy use in the home is, of course, an important element in the achievement of those targets. Over a quarter of our carbon dioxide emissions come from energy used in the home—7.5 tonnes each year from the average home. With that in mind, identifying progress made in implementing energy conservation reports prepared under the Bill will provide a useful input to the monitoring of our international commitments.
Although I hesitate to speak on matters relating to Ireland on St. Patrick's day even more than on other days, I should at this juncture also set out the reasoning behind amendment No. 10, which we shall consider a little later. It provides that the reference to the laying of energy conservation reports before Parliament in clause 3(4)(b) should, in relation to Northern Ireland, be a reference to laying before the Northern Ireland Assembly—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That should be considered when we deal with the next amendment.

Mr. Jones: I shall do that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry if the Minister will have to alter his brief, but that is not the concern of the Chair.

Mr. Jones: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that I might be able to save the House some time.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: This amendment is crucial to those of us who are concerned that the Bill may be

stronger in intention and aspiration than on achievement, because it is only through this clause—which has been belatedly put in the Bill—that Parliament will be informed not only as to what individual local authorities intend to do so in relation to home energy efficiency measures, but what they achieve.
I should like to press the Minister on one or two matters. He said earlier that, although it was not specifically mentioned in the Bill, the cost of assessing home energy efficiency needs for local authorities would be uppermost in his mind when he instructs authorities on further ways in which they should carry out schemes, and also when he reports to Parliament. He said that the compliance cost assessment which applies to every other piece of legislation that the Government are now putting forward would also apply effectively to this Bill.
My hon. Friend must accept that one or two of us are very cynical as to the estimates of the cost of this legislation. It has been said that the maximum that such legislation could cost is approximately £40,000 for each average-sized district council, making a total of about £23 million throughout the United Kingdom. Many people—particularly Opposition Members, who seem to spend other people's money as if it were going out of fashion—might say, "What is £23 million among friends?" I happen to think that £23 million is an enormous amount of money. When my hon. Friend comes to prepare his reports to Parliament, he should major on the important item of compliance cost assessment and on how effective is the information—albeit on a sample basis—which local authorities are getting when they carry out their surveys.
On that second point, I should be slightly concerned if the Minister felt—as he implied earlier in the debate—that, just because an area may have a lot of modern housing and therefore, in terms of energy efficiency, may be further advanced than those areas with older housing, necessarily the costs of assessing the energy efficiency of those houses would be any less. Obviously, it is the relative position of the houses and their efficiency which are important. That is why my hon. Friend rightly resisted in Committee a 30 per cent. reduction target across the board. The costs must be assessed, irrespective of how efficient the housing authority may he in the first instance.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I was not trying to suggest that the cost of assessment would be less, but that the target was less relevant because of the position houses were in.

Mr. Coombs: I entirely accept that.
The Bill seems to be frame—particularly clause 2 and subsections (3) and (4)—in terms of assessing the cost of energy conservation measures, assessing the extent by which carbon dioxide emissions would be decreased as a result of the measures, assessing the number of jobs which would result from the implementation of the measures and assessing the average savings on fuel bills which might be expected to result from the measures. All these are anticipated.
If the information that the Minister gives Parliament is to mean anything at all, not only do local authorities have to carry out the kind of projects itemised in subsections (3) and (4), but they must tell the Secretary of State what has been done and what achievements have been made. That, I submit, is a completely different exercise. It involves audit of properties on which home insulation work has been done and assessment of the subsequent


reduction in fuel bills and of energy efficiency. It also involves significant liaison with the private sector, which will carry out much of the work.
I suspect that, to the estimated £40,000 for each local authority for the original task of assessing aspiration and potential commitment, should be added the inspection system that local authorities will need to put in place to determine what has been achieved in practice. I worry that the cost could easily be double the estimate of £40,000 per authority. It could easily go up to £100,000. So the total cost to the nation of this measure, well intentioned though it is and effective as it might be, could be about £100 million rather than the £23 million that has been estimated so far.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: In considering the amendment and the reports that will have to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State, will my hon. Friend consider clause 7(b), which refers to:
any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under any other Act.
So whatever money is to be spent under the Bill—my hon. Friend has mentioned an amount somewhere between £23 million and £100 million—will be squeezed from some other local authority budget.

Mr. Coombs: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is all the more reason why the aspirations and achievements of the measure should be judged to be realistic in a rigorous form of compliance cost assessment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he reports. The amendment does not say how often he will have to report. I hope that he will report regularly to Parliament. The amendment says:
The Secretary of State shall from time to time prepare a report".
We do not know how often "from time to time" is. I hope that it will be on a bi-annual, if not annual basis, so that we can find out how effectively the measure is operating.

Mrs. Maddock: Some of the criticisms that have been made of the Bill are answered by the amendments. It is extremely important that timetables for action are set by the Secretary of State under the Bill and that they are implemented as rapidly as possible. Putting councils' progress in the public domain and exposing them to the glare of publicity is an essential part of ensuring that the Bill results in action. Parliament and the public must know what is going on. Those councils which are blazing the trail should be held up as examples, just as those which are dragging their heels must be encouraged and pressurised into getting their act together and improving progress.
As the Minister knows from our deliberations in Committee, I hoped that the Secretary of State would include in the Bill a requirement to make reports every year. I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on that point. I certainly support them. It would be ideal to have an annual statement in the House followed by a short debate on progress in the past 12 months to keep the matter in the public domain. So I am a little disappointed that the only time scale given for the reports is "from time to time".
I hope that when and if the Bill is enacted the Minister will come back with regular reports. Otherwise, he and other relevant Secretaries of State should expect to be pestered on a regular basis not only by me but by other hon. Members and by organisations outside the House on when the next progress report will be forthcoming.
Earlier in the debate, we heard from hon. Members who did not have a particularly good opinion of local authorities. They were concerned that putting a Bill on the statute book would not lead to action. The expectations surrounding the reports show that there is an intention to obtain action. The amendments will ensure that local and central Government work together to ensure absolutely that the Bill is not only words but results in action and that the Bill will lead not only to conservation of energy but to much warmer homes and better health for people.

Mr. Merchant: If I may take up the point that the hon. Member for Christchurch just mentioned, I said earlier that I support the Bill, but that my main reservation is the danger that it will pass into law and be acted on, but only quietly and that, in effect, its provisions will be lost because the public gaze will no longer be on the subject matter. If the Bill is to be effective, it must include proper reporting procedures. So I welcome the amendment, because it strengthens, clarifies and broadens the impact of the Bill.
I have three reasons for thinking that that is true: first, because proper reporting provisions will lead to the establishment of league tables, which have proved to be very effective in many areas of Government activity; secondly, because it is a means of helping to test progress against targets on a national basis; and, thirdly, because it is a good element of open government.
It is well known that there is a good deal of variation in practice between local authorities. If the Bill works effectively, it should draw attention to that variation in an official form. If it is possible to look into a report, hopefully on an annual basis, to look up details of what the different local authorities are doing, and to find out which are slipping behind and which arc in the fore, it will focus attention on the weaknesses in some areas and thus, hopefully, enable action to be taken.
I am lucky that being a green authority is one of the main objectives of Bromley—the local authority in my area. Indeed, "clean and green" is its slogan, and it focuses considerable attention on energy conservation as well as other green issues. There is an energy manager, an energy advice line, much work is done in schools and training, and the older members of the population arc given special attention, through grants, loans and ensuring that they use energy in the most effective way for their own good.
The amendment will help to achieve a comparison between authorities such as Bromley and those that are dragging their feet. League tables and reports encourage and exhort best practice. They focus attention on the highest standards, which encourage others to follow that example.
I hope that it will be possible for a debate to take place in the House, as part of the report-laying procedure, as that will also help to focus attention on the subject. What the Bill is trying to do—and what the amendment accentuates—is to stress the publicity element of energy conservation. I think that we are all agreed that one of the most important parts of the activity is to encourage the


focusing of more attention on the subject. There are always so many matters in the public domain at once, if conservation is to be maintained as the important issue that it is, it needs a mechanism by which the public's attention can regularly be focused on the progress that is being made. The amendment will help to achieve that.
I do not need to go into detail on national targets. We all know of the importance internationally of our national targets. By ensuring regular reporting and pressure at local level to reach targets, they can also be achieved nationally.
Open government is something in which I strongly believe. Many years ago, I spoke in the debates on the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. It was one of the first Acts that put a specific responsibility on local government to be open. I do not restrict my feelings on open government to local government. The Bill involves a good deal of responsibility for local government; the onus for carrying out the energy audit and reporting on it is on local government. As information is gathered nationally, the process should be as open as possible. Such openness is a good thing in itself, apart from the other benefits that I have mentioned.
Other hon. Members have referred to targets and compliance costs. There is some uncertainty about exactly what should be included in the reporting procedure because, as yet, we do not have any targets. Rightly, they are not in the Bill. To have included targets would have made the Bill less effective and less worthy. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will set strict targets. I hope that he will aim at around 30 per cent.; in some cases, the targets should be stricter. It is important to have targets in the whole process as they are a good measure by which one can judge progress, as in other areas. I hope, therefore, that targets will form an important feature of the reporting procedures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) was concerned about compliance costs. It is fair to request that details should be included in the reports. However, it is easy to exaggerate the potential cost. I have talked to my local authority and its estimate of the cost of producing the required reports is considerably lower than some of the figures mentioned today. It believes that it could easily adapt its housing conditions survey to include energy auditing, done on a sample of houses. The total amount spent by the local authority each year would be minimal, yet such a survey would achieve all the objectives intended in the Bill. For all those reasons, I very much welcome the amendment. It will strengthen the Bill and make it effective. It will underline the beneficial purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I whole-heartedly agree with the majority of points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant). One of the great deficiencies of the Bill is that it does not set proper targets. I listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), but I believe that the Bill's failure to set targets is its major weakness.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I understand the force of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I point out to him that the Energy Conservation Bill which I

promoted last Session contained targets. Conservative Members felt that it should not contain targets, which is why this Bill is in its present form.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Christchurch wanted targets in the Bill, but she has taken them out. I hope that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will allow me to develop my argument. My genuine concern is that the targets in the Bill are rather wishy-washy. One local authority may take one view and another may take another. One local authority may already have decided to undertake a so-called green audit, yet many others have not gone down that route. Although many Conservative Members support the Bill, it does not quite have the teeth—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to the Bill, but he should be considering the amendments under discussion.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to deal specifically with the progress reports to which amendments Nos. 8 and 9 refer.
The whole purpose of having reports drawn up by local authorities and reports to the Secretary of State and from the Secretary of State to the House requires a firm foundation on which action can be taken. It is not enough to present a report to the House that shows that action may or may not have been taken by particular local authorities but that no particular target has been reached.
The hon. Member for Christchurch wanted to press for a 30 per cent. target, but for reasons that we all understand, she subsequently referred to a 25 per cent. target. It is now suggested that we should aim at an advisory, guidance figure of about 30 per cent. That is not a firm figure, because, as the Minister has already explained, it will vary from one local authority to another. Some local authorities are already extremely well advanced in promoting energy conservation measures.
The reporting process is cumbersome and bureaucratic. The Bill will set a duty on local authorities to become energy conservation authorities, but it does not specifically set down the relevant national criteria. I recognise that they will vary between one local authority and another, but the hon. Member for Christchurch has backed off from the final hurdle, because the Bill is not what she originally wanted. It does not achieve the objectives desired by the many people who lobbied the House yesterday.
The cornerstone of the reports proposed in the two amendments is that they should ensure that local authorities prepare reports setting out how the energy efficiency of residential properties in their areas can be improved. The central issue dealt with in Committee was whether there should be a requirement on local authorities to aim for the specific numerical improvement of the 30 per cent. target or, as the Government proposed, aim to achieve only a significant improvement. The hon. Member for Christchurch put a forceful case, but she has not got precisely what she wanted in terms of the amendments or, if you will allow me to say so, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Bill.
The hon. Lady pointed out that, five years ago, the Government told the intergovernmental panel on climate change that good housekeeping could improve energy


efficiency by some 10 per cent. I accept that that is the case. Without the reports mentioned in the amendments, we shall be unable to check on progress towards that target.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to what took place in Committee and I recognise that some of the objections to the Bill have been gradually whittled away, which is a welcome move. We must bear in mind the fact that local authority associations have fought against the specific targets that the hon. Member for Christchurch wanted. Those councils were particularly concerned about whether they would be able to meet targets that were perhaps too high and the fact that specific targets did not recognise what one local authority was doing as opposed to another. Those associations have been active in campaigning to improve energy efficiency, and they have carried out a great deal of work to achieve that among their members.
I referred earlier to the difference in housing stock. I recognise that some local authorities to which I have referred will have had a much easier task because of their particular circumstances. When referring to the reporting process and the authorities that the amendments will create, I am mindful of the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who said that his local authority was extremely small and did not have many officers. Therefore, he argued, the tasks which the amendments would effectively place on his local authority would be burdensome to it. I believe that the target date for those proposals to become effective—perhaps the hon. Lady might confirm that—is April 1996. It might perhaps have been better to have chosen a later date for implementation, but nevertheless 1996 it is.
Although many of the objections that were made by Conservative Members when we debated the previous two Bills on this subject have been tackled, we are left with something that is not as tangible as one would have liked. As the amended clause stands, it will require each local authority to prepare those reports and especially to consider practicable, cost-effective measures likely to result in significant improvement in domestic energy savings.
That is rather willy-nilly. No extra money is made available as a result of the Bill, and I am far from certain whether the proposals contained in amendment No. 9 will have an impact. We shall merely set up a great many committees—a talking shop—and I am not convinced that there will be any tangible results.
The reports to which the amendment refers will have to include an assessment of the costs of such measures, an assessment of their impact on carbon dioxide emissions and a statement of the council's policy for taking into account the personal circumstances of persons to whom grants or loans may be offered. Assessments of the impact on emissions of sulphur and nitrogen oxides, job creation and fuel bills may also be included in the reports—which local authorities may discuss—but only at the discretion of the local authority. There is nothing specific—only generalities as to what must be placed in the reports. It will be for the authorities to decide for themselves whom to consult when preparing their reports. One local authority may consult one group of people, but there is no standardisation throughout the country.
Amendment No. 8 sets out the steps to be taken by the Secretary of State under subsection 3(2)(b). It will oblige the Secretary of State to set a deadline for submission of those reports to him, but what will happen when that deadline arrives and those reports are submitted? The Secretary of State will also have to set a deadline for submission of progress reports. Presumably the Government will direct local authorities to modify or update their reports.
The hon. Member for Christchurch appeared to be urging that we hold an annual debate on those reports. It conjured up in my mind a possibility of a debate similar to the debates on the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. We would know that, once during a 12-month period, we would have an opportunity to consider energy conservation and what local authorities are doing. In view of the opportunities that right hon. and hon. Members now have to discuss those issues, especially in debates on the Adjournment of the House, I believe that that suggestion would be welcome, and would provide a peg on which to hang that subject.
I also welcome, but I do not want to stray too far into a debate on, amendment No. 10—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not stray on to it at all.

Mr. Banks: I am most grateful for your continued guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact that amendments Nos. 8 and 9 will allow for reports similar to those that will, one hopes, be made if progress is made with the Northern Irish Assembly, is most welcome.
I return to the first, and key, fact that I mentioned—that local authority associations have been unhappy with the idea of setting specific targets. The Bill has been considerably watered down. I accept that Conservative Members have had genuine objections. There has been concern about creating unwieldy bureaucracy, and about the necessity of having reports and queries on what will be done when reports are produced.
I am not convinced that enough local authority time is spent dealing with the nitty-gritty concerns of my constituents and those of right hon. and hon. Members in other boroughs. If we create extra responsibilities for local authorities, we place greater costs on them—but for what? Earlier today, hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to the grants available for pipe lagging and window insulation—laudable provisions. But the amendments do not produce one extra penny towards the issues about which the hon. Member for Christchurch and my hon. Friends are concerned.
I am not convinced that the amendments will necessarily prove the success that we would want. The hon. Lady and those of us who have supported the Bill will be able to return to our constituencies and say that we have raised the important subject of energy conservation. In relation to the reports, I am concerned—particularly in the light of the introduction of VAT on gas and electricity—that we need to ensure that every opportunity is taken to reduce emissions and that,


wherever possible, we introduce grants for energy conservation. I am not convinced that the Bill will take us a major step—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying into the realms of Third Reading. If he wants to speak on Third Reading, he had better stick to the amendments now.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not propose to catch your eye on Third Reading.
Although I took a particular interest in the amendment relating to mobile homes, amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are probably the most important. Although the amendments do not set targets and merely provide guidance, unless there is a mechanism for local authorities to discuss, in their own boroughs, energy efficiency, how they encourage energy conservation—particularly in their housing stock—and energy efficiency in mobile homes, I do not believe that progress will be made.
It is all very well for progress to be made and reporting to take place within local authorities. The amendments are important—particularly where they relate to clause 3(2)(b)—because without a mechanism that requires the Secretary of State to report to the House, hon. Members will not have the opportunity to discuss in the House important matters affecting our constituents, particularly those who are less well off.

Mr. Fabricant: I very much welcome amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which follow on logically, not just numerically, from amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7, which were adopted by the House and which involved the judgmental basis of the reports.
I have a love of glasnost and open government. My love of open government may be because I am not in government; my love of glasnost is probably because my work frequently used to take me to the Soviet Union in the days of glasnost under Mikhail Gorbachev, when Radio Moscow was one of my clients. I did not meet the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) in Moscow on any of her frequent visits to that city as chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. However, I am sure that she, too, shares a love of glasnost for similar reasons.
I think that there should be regular reports. Regularity of reports is not specified in the Bill, and that is a significant omission. It is not unreasonable to expect annual reports to be provided to Parliament. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport that there should be regular debates on the issue in Parliament. If we were to debate regularly the Army, the Navy and every other issue that hon. Members would like to debate, we would have no time to pass legislation. However, it is not unreasonable to request that a written annual report be laid before the Parliament.
1.45 pm
What should such an annual report contain? Most of its contents were described extremely well by my hon. Friend in his magnum opus. However, I think that some form of league tables should apply to the various energy conservation authorities. Like the noble Baroness Thatcher—I do not compare myself to her, but while she had a law degree and a degree in chemistry, I have a law degree and am a master of science—I am interested in things which are both quantitative and qualitative.

I do not underestimate the difficulty of quantifying those criteria that are purely qualitative. League tables encounter that difficulty: sometimes they oversimplify the relative positions of that which is being compared. Nevertheless, league tables have the major advantage of demonstrating how one authority's performance compares with that of another.
Perhaps in his reply to this part of the debate, the Minister will confirm whether league tables would form part of the reports. What form would they take and how often would the reports be published? Could there not be a written annual report, or does the Minister feel that the data may not be collected easily?
We need a national annual report not only to see what the local energy conservation authorities are doing but to make comparisons with national or international benchmarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport raised that matter.

Mr. Matthew Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. There is constant reference to Stockport in relation to my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) and I are constantly confused with one another, but my constituency should not be confused with another.

Mr. Fabricant: I stand admonished; I was of course referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks).
There should be benchmarks in this sector, which could perhaps relate to the criteria set by the Rio earth summit. It is worth reminding the House that it was the noble Baroness Thatcher who instigated that 1992 summit. Would not the criteria agreed at that summit serve as useful benchmarks against which the performances of energy conservation authorities could be measured?
Annual reports could serve that national role. However, I pointed out earlier that energy conservation is a double-sided equation. On the one side, we see the loss of energy through lack of insulation; and on the other, we have the efficient use of energy through the application of energy-efficient machinery. There are huge discrepancies between the efficiency of, for example, washing machines and driers. Some use twice as much energy as others to achieve the same effect.
I wonder whether the annual report could contain a league table listing which pieces of equipment were more efficient than others—a sort of which? report on energy conservation. If the Department is not prepared to compile a table, perhaps we should encourage the Consumers Association to do it, if it does not do so already.
In any event, an annual report would be welcome. It should contain league tables so that we can compare the performance of energy conservation authorities locally. The local authorities should be measured against national or international benchmarks, which could well be the Rio summit criteria. There should also be regular mention of the different types of home appliances because there is no question but that some are far more efficient than others. All those matters form part of the general energy conservation in which we as a nation can engage.

Mr. Hendry: I, too, think that this important amendment should be welcomed, but I shall explain why what we are discussing is not a poor substitute for targets.


I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) because I believe that a report would be a significant improvement on the concept of targets.
Targets would be difficult to enforce because it has become clear that some parts of the country are more advanced in terms of energy conservation than others. If all areas were given the same blanket target, there would inevitably be some discrepancies and those areas that had already gone further than others would find themselves unable to meet the targets by dint of the fact that they had already done more.
We have already discussed the fact that some parts of the country contain many more older properties than others. It would be unreasonable for Rochdale, which has many small old houses, to be given exactly the same target as Milton Keynes or Telford, where the bulk of the housing stock is more modern and where there are already in place much more sophisticated methods of energy conservation. We should therefore naturally shy away from targets. If there were national targets, the local authorities that would find it most difficult to meet the targets would be those that had already done the most.
It would be much more effective to have in place a system of national reporting. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), I should prefer a system of league tables. More effectively than anything else, such a system would enable us to ask local authorities why some were doing better than others and to give a kick start to those that we felt were not doing enough.
A good example for us to follow would be the league table system for examination results. That system has resulted in individual schools saying each year that they want to do better. It is much more effective than a system of targets which would mean saying that every school should achieve a certain number of GCSE or A-level passes. Now, each year, schools can compare themselves with others which motivates all of them to do better—not just better than schools around and about but better than they each managed to achieve the previous year. A system of league tables would be a much greater spur to progress on the conservation front than a set of targets which, at the end of the day, would be pretty well unenforceable.
It is quite right that authorities should report to us and that we should have the chance to debate in the House the progress that they have made, because we want to know where they stand. More than that, we want to be able to get a picture of the situation across the country, so that we could then ask questions of them as to why some of them have done better than others and why some are not doing as well as we might have expected. That would mean that we, the Government and others, could badger local authorities to do more, to push forward, to ensure that they are in no doubt that we believe that the authorities that are at the bottom of the league tables need to be chased.
On education again, we have found that the league tables show that Derbyshire is at the bottom. That gives us the power as local Members of Parliament to examine why Derbyshire delegates less to its schools than any other county. If it was not for the league tables, we would not be able to put pressure on Derbyshire to do better.

There has also been some debate about the regularity with which the reports should be issued. I have to disagree with those who have said that it should be annually, or even bi-annually. It is entirely right that it should be from time to time. I say that for two reasons. First, if there is a requirement on local authorities to prepare reports too regularly, it will become a distraction and their energies and resources will be channelled into preparing them, when it should be going into the meat of the energy conservation programme. If we required them to prepare an annual report, not only would extra costs be incurred in the process, but their efforts and initiatives would be diverted from what we want them to be doing.
Secondly, a more important point is that, year in and year out, we will find that progress is made on that front, and therefore further progress each year becomes more difficult. If one starts from a low base, it is easy to make a big step in energy conservation, but 20 or 30—even 50 or 60—years down the line, when the Act still lies on the statute book, the same degree of progress will become more difficult. Whatever one might be able to achieve in one or two years, a similar proportionate improvement in energy conservation will not be achievable in future years, because so much progress will have been made.
We must bear in mind that, in the Bill and through the amendment, we are establishing a reporting progress that will be set in stone for all time. At some point in the future, when all houses have perfect energy conservation, or have gone as far as they can, it will be quite proper that the Secretary of State should turn around and say, "I do not think that we need another report on this for 10 or 20 years, because we have gone this far." It would be idiocy if we were still bound by a system of annual or bi-annual reports which the Secretary of State had to lay before Parliament, and statements had to be made to show what further progress had been made in the year.
That situation will evolve. It will steadily improve. It is right, therefore, that the Secretary of State should have the flexibility to say that we want reports bi-annually at the moment, or perhaps every three or five years, but in years to come we wish to have them on a more irregular basis and with a greater intervening period. That is pragmatic and sensible. That is why I believe the Government's approach to be right.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the discipline required of local authorities presenting an annual report to the Secretary of State—I remind my hon. Friend that the clauses say that the Secretary of State, not the local authorities, shall prepare the annual report—is a discipline that should be in place? In fact, that would not be a distraction, because it would be within an authority's normal procedures to produce the hard data from which the Secretary of State was able to prepare his report.

Mr. Hendry: I understand clearly my hon. Friend's point, but I disagree with him, for this reason: the discipline is important if it is meaningful. Given that we are considering a general survey of properties, it is essentially a random selection. If the reports are gathered over too regular a period, the changes that will occur will be smaller than the margin of error that one might expect from a random survey. As a result, although it is important to have discipline, a report may say, "Here is the improvement that has taken place, but I am afraid that, because of the margin of error involved in the process, it is actually of no consequence whatsoever."


The House wants to debate issues of substance. We therefore want substantial reports. There must be a reporting process that enables us to see changes that have taken place. To achieve that, reports must be meaningful. For those reasons, I believe that the amendment is right and that the Government's phraseology is correct. I am happy to support the amendment.

2 pm

Ms Ruddock: I support the amendments. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) tabled an amendment in Committee which required annual reports. At the time, the Minister persuaded her to withdraw her amendment so that he could return on Report with his own wording. We are pleased that he has kept his undertaking, because it is crucial, if we are to make real progress, that we know precisely what is happening and the potential, and that we can measure progress year on year.
We need to know the cost of the energy conservation measures that each local authority can put in place. We need to know the extent of carbon dioxide emissions that might result from those proposals. We would be extremely interested in the number of jobs that might be created if those measures were taken.
Furthermore, the assessment of average savings that could accrue from the measures to individual households is not just important to them; it is extremely important also in the national context with regard to conserving energy and slowing the rate at which we use up finite resources. For all those reasons, drawing together all local authority reports into one national report would do a great service to this country and to the Government, and to the potential for better administration.
We do not share the scepticism and cynicism of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) when he referred to the possibility of costs rising from around £20 million to £100 million. If it takes more than £20 million to deal with the problem, I would much prefer that money to be spent on energy efficiency measures at local level than for it to go into share options for members of the boards of privatised utilities.
The reports are necessary. We must understand what the Bill will provide for in terms of reporting at local level. Drawing all that information together will make it possible to compare authorities. That is healthy. League tables of that kind are perfectly appropriate and we would very much support them. We have no fear about how well Labour-controlled authorities would perform, because we know that they would be near the top of the league.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Ruddock: No, there is not enough time. I do not want to delay this part of our proceedings.
Let me make it clear that a Labour Government would very much welcome, and would establish, annual reporting. We would require an annual environment report of all Ministers concerned with energy efficiency and other environmental processes. Not only do we believe that such a report should be debated in Parliament, but we would also submit it for scrutiny to the environmental audit committee which we intend to establish with powers similar to that of the Public Accounts Committee. With those few words, I very much welcome the amendment.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: With the leave of the House, may I say that the amendment, and the substance of the

matter, is about transparency, targets and performance against those targets. I will return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) later because I do not agree with him at all about the targets and I shall explain why.
We have considered the time frame. Some hon. Members, like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), suggested that the reports should be bi-annual; others believe that they should be annual. It is not that we are trying to avoid having annual—

Mr. Merchant: If I gave my hon. Friend the impression that I wanted bi-annual reports, it was a false impression. My suggestion was that they should be annual.

Mr. Jones: I apologise to my hon. Friend. When I look at my notes, which are slightly untidy, I see that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) who wanted the reports to be bi-annual.
The point is that we want to tie the reports in with the housing investment programme submissions and allocations which at present constitute an annual system. But when one considers the burden of drawing up such reports on some small rural authorities, it is not sensible to preclude us from reforming the HIP system and putting it on a bi-annual basis for authorities with less than a certain amount of stock, or whatever the criterion might be.
Although I envisage the reports as annual for the time being, if the HIP process were reformed I should not want to be boxed in by something in the Bill requiring authorities that did not have to submit their HIP reports every year to continue to submit the other reports. Hon. Members will understand that.
My second point is about cost. Reference was made to the need for a system of inspectors to follow up the assessments and to see what has changed in the meantime. That would not be necessary. First, the technique of conducting stock profiles is developing all the time, making it easier and easier to do without the thermal thought police.
Secondly, the private sector can be involved. The Nationwide building society already includes an energy rating in all its surveys, and the Halifax building society is doing the same on a pilot basis. I hope that, before long, all building societies and other lenders will follow suit, which will mean that from house sales we shall have a steady year-on-year picture of how stock in the private sector is progressing. That involves no inspectors, simply the normal market processes.
Within the normal regime that applies to local authorities, I expect that, as we already require them to have an energy efficiency strategy as part of their HIP submissions, we shall be able to build on that, thus minimising additional costs for them. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friends.
I must tackle head on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport, who seemed to be arguing both ways. He wanted the rigidity of targets built into the Bill to ensure delivery, but at the same time he did not want unfair impositions on local authorities. He cannot have it both ways.


Three problems would arise if we built a target into a Bill. First, if there is to be a target of 30 per cent. one has to decide what it is 30 per cent. of. Many local authorities have no stock profile at all, so how can they measure 30 per cent. from a base line that they do not have?
Secondly, we should have to lay down in primary legislation the methodology for the calculation, which would more than double the length of the Bill. Furthermore, my hon. Friend knows how litigious people are nowadays, and it is absurd that one might be taken to court because of a difference between 29.9 per cent. and 30.1 per cent. on the basis of calculations that had been set down in primary legislation. It is much better to lay down targets in guidance for local authorities and to use the HIP system to police them.
Moreover, we shall wish to adjust the targets as the years go by, depending on our international commitments. I referred earlier to the commitment given by the Secretary of State in the context of the Berlin conference. I do not see the targets as written in tablets of stone. We shall wish to re-examine the position from time to time.
Of course, we shall also wish to examine the impact on individual local authorities. The burden of evidence submitted by the local authority associations—this was well discussed in Committee—was that they preferred the more flexible approach in the guidance notes to the more rigid approach involved by having the measure in the Bill.
The third reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Southport is fundamentally wrong is that there are other ways of approaching this subject which may become more relevant over a period. Instead of looking at savings from a base line, we may well wish to look at how to get to a particular point on the minimum ratings of the energy efficiency of homes, as we do with new builds, through the building regulations system and the regime for housing association properties.
If one authority is far less energy efficient than another, it might be appropriate for that authority to have a bigger target because it will need to do more work to get to that minimum level of energy efficiency. An authority that has a highly energy-efficient stock—if there were such an authority—would have less of a gap to close.
For those three excellent reasons, it will be much better to deal with the matter in the course of the guidance so that we can adapt to changing circumstances and technology and to the real requirements of the world, instead of trying to box ourselves into a measure which was denounced in one phrase by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport and supported in another. All along, the Government have been desirous of achieving something better than the Energy Conservation Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and I think that we are gradually getting there.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend the Minister has stated that 30 per cent. of a very low base still leaves a low energy efficient stock. For those authorities that have a very low energy-efficient rating, will my hon. Friend consider setting guidance of absolute SAP levels for that authority or for a range of authorities?

Mr. Jones: That is precisely the point I am trying to make. At first, we want to set a target of 30 per cent. for

every local authority, but those who feel they have a case for exemption from that target—one or two have been mentioned—can talk to us. If they are as good as they think, we will have no difficulty in accepting their reasoning.
The SAP regime is in its early stages and it would not be right to move to that immediately, but it does commend itself to many hon. Members, particularly those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, have served on the Select Committee and seen the advantages of the energy rating of homes. For all of those reasons, I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 3, line 20, leave out 'and (3)' and insert 'to (4)'.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Clause 8

NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 3, line 38, after 'Ireland;' insert—

`( ) the reference in section 3(4) to laying before Parliament shall be construed as a reference to laying before the Northern Ireland Assembly;'.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When first I came to the House 20 months ago, I could not have dreamt that I would be in the position that I am today of having the opportunity to guide a Bill through the House. I could also not have dreamt that I would spend a large part of a Friday morning discussing narrow boats and canal boats. Nor did I expect to described as a moderate. That has not been my role in politics, and for a number of years I have been a thorn in the side of politicians.
The Bill is only the beginning, and we all want to see its implementation in the coming years. On Committee, the Minister gave a number of assurances about the contents of the guidance notes which would be issued to local authorities when they were implementing the Bill, and about the firmness with which the measures would be enforced.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) was critical about the potential outcome of the Bill and about the fact that we did not have targets on the face of the Bill. My hon. Friends and I—and many people outside the House who support the Bill—would have welcomed his support in that area much earlier as we pressed the Government on some of those points.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does the hon. Lady accept that she herself took the targets out of the Bill?

Mrs. Maddock: The hon. Gentleman should have waited for my next sentence. The resulting Bill accommodates the views of local authorities, local authority associations, the Government, myself and all those who have supported the Bill and ensured that we would put an energy conservation Bill on to the statute book.
It is vital to the success of the Bill that we have the assurances that the Minister has given and that those assurances are kept. Passing the Bill will lay the foundations of a national energy conservation strategy, but it is up to local government to build on those


foundations and up to central Government to see that the building is solid and proceeds at a reasonable pace. The Minister is the foreman of the building programme. He is a foreman in whom I have great confidence. Apart from what I like to believe was a temporary aberration in November, the Minister's support for an energy conservation Bill has been firm. I thank him for that.
I particularly thank the Minister for his constructive approach in the Committee proceedings. The Committee was a fine example of how hon. Members from across the House can work together to achieve a common aim. I also thank other hon. Members who served on the Committee and were co-operative.
There was considerable reorganisation of the clauses of the Bill in Committee. Many changes were made, some beneficial and some not so beneficial. However, the quality of the Bill and the effect that it will have is just as significant as when my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) introduced a similar Bill this time last year. I am sure that hon. Members do not need reminding of the fate of the Bill on that occasion. The central thrust of my Bill remains the same as two years ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) introduced a ten-minute Bill.
The thrust of the Bill is to give local authorities a duty to assess the potential for energy savings in their area and to produce a plan or report saying how they would achieve those savings, and for the relevant Secretary of State to set every council a timetable for action, which would be closely monitored. That would lead to a reduction in emissions of polluting gases but also to warmer homes and potentially lower fuel bills. It would also cut the incidence of cold-related deaths from, for example, hypothermia. That would save not only lives but NHS financial resources.
Yesterday more than 500 people came to London to support the Bill. The director of Friends of the Earth told us all that he believed that the Bill was a win-win-win measure. I support that contention. Before I conclude, I must quickly pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the Bill's progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed have guided the Bill through its evolution. I also pay tribute to the huge number of councils of all political persuasions which have passed motions in support of the Bill. The number was more than 700 at the last count. The last one came in from a parish council near Chelmsford yesterday.
A tremendous range of national organisations has supported the Bill. In particular, the Association for the Conservation of Energy was an indispensable source of advice and assistance and, indeed, persistence, as the rest of us were.
The Bill is the beginning of the energy conservation story. It certainly should not be the end. If the Bill is passed, it will be a sign of the commitment across the House to energy conservation and of the commitment of people across Britain, more than 500 of whom took the trouble to come to London yesterday to support it. The Bill and its predecessor have been discussed five times on the Floor of the House in 14 months. I hope that hon. Members will feel that the concerns that they have expressed have been taken into account during that time

and that they will share my view that the Bill has not been damaged in the process. I hope that they will all support the Third Reading.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am glad that the first words on my brief are that I support the motion that the Bill be read the Third time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on having successfully piloted it thus far. She has done so with skill and a great deal of common sense.
I also join in the general welcome from the House and outside for the fact that the hon. Lady the opportunity provided by her good fortune in the ballot to take up the important topic of energy efficiency in the home. In her Third Reading speech, she said that I had a long history of involvement with the topic. I am glad that I have had the good fortune to be the Minister at the time that the Bill reached this point.
There has been no point at which I would have changed my mind, even last November, whatever the hon. Member for Christchurch might say. I told the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that I thought that we could do better than his Bill, and that has been proved by our debates.
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Department of the Environment, despite our awful building, and perhaps it is appropriate in that anniversary year that we are considering this Bill, as it touches on areas for which my Department has had responsibility since its inception—housing and local government—and on one of its newest responsibilities—energy efficiency. It will be interesting to see how posterity will view the Bill as a contribution to energy efficiency in another 25 years. It has the potential to make a valuable contribution.
The Bill will now pass to another place for further consideration in a less rigid, more clearly defined and more workable form. I wish it well in its progress there and look forward to seeing it on the statute book.

Mr. Beith: It is a privilege to be able to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on the excellent work that she has done to pilot the Bill through the House and to speak in what I hope are the closing moments of a debate that I feel I started on moving the Second Reading of a similar Bill a year ago. During these debates, we have developed the curious caricature that my hon. Friend is the moderate and I am the extreme radical, and that the environmental proposals were so radical that they had to be substantially modified.
We have been engaged in the exercise of trying to meet reservations in various quarters—whether of local authority associations or of Ministers—to arrive at something that the Government would agree to see through the House, and it is true that the Minister played a considerable part in securing this achievement. He gave away the secret—it lay in accepting that the new burdens procedure could be brought into play as regards the Bill. Neither he nor I think that that will be particularly costly for local authorities and we both think that the gains will hugely outweigh the costs. The Minister set himself the task of getting the Treasury to accept that and applied


himself to it with zeal, pressed on, I am sure, by the huge public campaign that has been waged and the absurdity of continuing to resist legislation in this area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has done an excellent job and, as she said, we have built important foundations for energy conservation policy, on which we now need to build.

Ms Ruddock: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on the way in which she has brought the Bill to what should, I hope, be its final stages in the House. I also pay tribute to her main advisers—the Association for the Conservation of Energy—which has been very helpful to all the members of the Committee and gave us the opportunity to benefit from its great expertise in the subject.
Reaching this stage of the Bill has been a complex process, as we heard from several hon. Members, and we all feared that we might not reach this final hurdle successfully. I thank the Minister for his co-operation and for fulfilling his promises in Committee, which became successful amendments and were agreed today.
The Bill is timely. One of the greatest obstacles to developing a strategy for energy efficiency and, more importantly, for energy conservation has been the lack of information. In recent times, it has become more difficult to gather that information and, by making local authorities into energy conservation authorities, in the Bill we will have the opportunity systematically to gather information about the conditions in people's homes. We have the opportunity to assess what can be done to improve them.
In all those ways, this small, simple Bill—a modest measure which will not cost the country a great deal—can set us on a course whereby we can develop a much more comprehensive energy strategy. That will not only make people feel warmer in their homes, but may conceivably reduce fuel bills and enable us as a nation to contribute to meeting the international obligations set at Rio. For all those reasons, I very much welcome, on behalf of the Opposition, the Third Reading of the Bill. I wish it a successful passage in the other place.

Mr. Leigh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on the way in which she introduced the Bill. She has learnt the essential lesson of all private Members' Bills. If one wants to get them through and past the Government, one has to have a light touch—a touch so light that the public may not notice the result. I shall not be mean about the Bill or submit to the temptation of talking for another six minutes which would not be popular with hon. Members on either side.
I am pleased that I have, almost uniquely—apart from one or two other hon. Members—been given an opportunity today to talk about economic realities. I refer the House to clause 2(2), which says:
The report shall set out energy conservation measures that the authority considers practicable, cost-effective and likely to result in significant improvement in the energy efficiency of residential accommodation".
I hope that authorities, especially small authorities, will realise that they should act moderately. I hope that they will appreciate that it is only by improving attitudes among the public and by ensuring that they understand the true cost of energy that we shall achieve what we all want—a reduction in the amount of energy we use in our homes and businesses.
2.26 pm

Mr. Merchant: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on Third Reading. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) in congratulating the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on the skill with which she has piloted through the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his good wisdom in assisting that process. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on the good humour she showed on her countenance throughout the debate as she sat on the Opposition Benches almost in splendid isolation—until a few moments ago, when she was mysteriously joined by some of her colleagues.
When I picked up the Bill last night to have another look at it, I made the mistake of picking up the original version. I thought that it was surprising and remarkable that nothing much had been changed in Committee. I then realised that I was looking at the wrong version. When I read the Bill as amended in Committee, I found the changes so considerable that I could scarcely recognise it. Having had the benefit of sitting through the Report stage this morning, I realise that the changes have significantly improved the Bill. We now have a Bill which has a good purpose and which will achieve in practice what it is intended to achieve. I fear that the earlier version may not have done that.
The Bill not only sets up energy conservation authorities, but stipulates clearly what they shall do. For the first time, it puts on them a clear duty to carry out certain functions to do with assessing the state of energy conservation in their areas and then reporting to the House. The Bill does so with, as I said earlier, a light touch. It does so effectively without going into considerable detail. Thermal policing techniques would have been involved if the Bill had been more complex and if it had set out more specific duties.
Clearly, the Bill does not require officers of the local authority to hammer on doors or to go inside every house. It does not require them to go through the onerous activities that would have been involved if every house had had to be measured for energy effectiveness. Instead, local authorities can show some flexibility. They can achieve the objectives of the Bill by applying their own techniques and by using sampling processes. By that, they will achieve as accurate a picture as would have been achieved if detailed requirements had been involved. For that reason, I support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (Northern Ireland) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]

Mr. Edward Leigh: I should like to say a few words on the Bill because obviously Northern Ireland is an important part of the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame on you."] The House should have rather more time to discuss this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "This is disgraceful."] I do not think that it is right that a Bill of this nature which, after all, will have a significant affect—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 21 April.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS)( WALES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 April.

WATER CHARGES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PRISONERS (RETURN TO CUSTODY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

NATURAL DISASTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS)(SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

NATIONAL HEALTH PATIENT ACCOMMODATION BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 April.

CARERS (RECOGNITION AND SERVICES) BILL

Ordered,

That Standing Committee C be discharged from considering the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Dixon.]

Committee on Friday 21 April.

EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES

Ordered,

That European Community Document No. 5097/95, relating to Common Agricultural Policy price proposals, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee A.—[Mr. Wood.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Tuesday 21st March, the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Agricultural Prices not later than Ten o'clock; and the Order [19th December] (Statutory Instruments and European Community Documents) shall not apply.—[Mr. Wood.]

Asylum Seekers

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Neil Gerrard: A young Somali girl came to see me at my most recent advice surgery in my constituency. She is just 19 years old and is a refugee. She has been in this country since 1993, having previously been in a refugee camp in Kenya. She is now caring for four brothers aged between three and 15, two sisters aged seven and eight and an elderly grandmother. In the past two years, no decision has been taken on her application for asylum. Her parents are still in a refugee camp in Kenya. It is quite possible that a number of years could pass before a decision is taken on that girl's application and, even then, there is no guarantee that her parents will ever be able to join her and her brothers and sisters in this country. Anyone who is involved with refugees and asylum seekers could repeat many similar stories.
The main issue that I wish to raise is family reunion for asylum seekers, for those who have been granted asylum and those granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Minister will have seen early-day motion 400, which refers to this matter, and the charter produced last year by the British Refugee Council, which was sent to him just before Christmas.
First, I shall say a few general things about the asylum process, to provide relevant background to what is happening about family reunion. It is obvious that there has been a significant change in the past few years, especially since the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 came into force on 1 August 1993. The Government then argued that we needed speedier decisions, and I do not think that many of us had any quarrel with that, although we did question, and still would question, whether decisions should be taken in accordance with the time scales in the 1993 Act for fast-tracking of applications.
The Government also argued during the passage of the 1993 legislation that exceptional leave to remain was being abused, in the sense that it was being used for non-deserving cases and that exceptional leave was often granted simply because a person had been in the country for several years waiting for a decision to be made about an application. The Government argued that exceptional leave to remain was often granted, not because a case was especially strong, but because it was felt that it could be granted on compassionate or humanitarian grounds although asylum was not justified.
Since then—and to some extent before that time, but the process has accelerated since the 1993 Act came into force—refusal rates have increased sharply and are now running at slightly more than 80 per cent., exceptional leave to remain has decreased and refugee status is now granted to very few people, between 3 and 4 per cent. of those who apply.
Many of the figures that are produced in answers to parliamentary questions distort what is happening, because two separate queues are being operated in the asylum division of the Home Office. One is a queue of asylum seekers who applied before the 1993 Act came into force. A separate group of staff deals with a separate queue of people who have applied since the 1993 Act came into force.


The queues are moving at very different rates. Nearly 42,000 applications were made between 1 August 1993, when the 1993 Act came into force, and 31 December 1994, of which more than 20,000 have been determined and a further approximately 2,000 withdrawn. In other words, more than half the people who have applied since 1 August 1993 have received a decision of some sort. That leaves nearly 20,000 who have not.
Of the slightly more than 40,000 cases that were outstanding at the time that the 1993 Act came into force, 35,700 remained outstanding on 31 December 1994. If that rate of progress is maintained, some of those people having already waited several years for a decision, could expect to wait perhaps six, seven or eight years more. I suspect that probably very few of those people in the "old cases" queue will be granted refugee status, but that a considerably higher proportion will obtain exceptional leave; probably a rather higher proportion of those people than of those who have applied since the 1993 Act came into force will obtain exceptional leave.
One question that the Minister may be able to answer—if he does not have the information with him, perhaps he will let us know later—is how the 150 new staff in the asylum division will be distributed and whether they will concentrate on the new cases or on the ones that were outstanding before the 1993 Act came into force.
A further consequence of the regime now being operated and of the very high rate of refusals is that the appeals system is being clogged up with ever longer waiting times for appeals. Several thousand people are already waiting and several hundred more are being added to the queue every month. That has an impact, not only on asylum seekers, but on all immigration appeals. Many of those are appeals which concern family reunion because they are cases of people who have been refused entry for husbands, wives or fiancés and are appealing against that decision.
Many people who work with refugees and have dealt with case work often find it extremely difficult to distinguish between those who are given asylum and those who are given exceptional leave to remain. I recall two people who, by chance, came to the same advice surgery that I held, one of whom was given asylum and the other exceptional leave.
The man who was given exceptional leave was a Tamil who had been arrested in Sri Lanka and had spent three years in prison. There was clear evidence of beating with lumps of wood with holes filled with concrete and of other torture. It was documented by the Medical Foundation for the Care of the Tortured.
The man, who was well educated, knew precisely what had happened to him and could explain in clear terms what had happened. He was given exceptional leave to remain. Many of us would be able to give similar examples where it is extremely difficult to see why a person was given only exceptional leave and not asylum.
There are serious consequences for family reunions. A person who is granted asylum is allowed reunion, but that is not the whole story. The reunion may be allowed, but that does not necessarily mean that there will not be delays. There may have been delays in deciding the claim for asylum and delays in decisions on family admissions. A restrictive definition of "family" is used, comprising husband, wife and children under 18. That fails to take into account other relatives such as aged parents or extended family units where people have lived together as a family in whatever country they have left.
If a person is given exceptional leave to remain, the rule is that there is a four-year wait before an application for family reunion will normally be considered. There is then a wait for the decision, which may take months. That is all time on top of the time waited for the original decision on exceptional leave.
Let us consider the cumulative effect of those waits, particularly on people who applied well before the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 came into force. There are cases of people having to wait five, six, seven or eight years for a decision on their case. They then have to wait a further four years before they can apply for family reunion, and perhaps more time on top of that before they are given a decision.
The effects of such a process and what it says about respect for family life are obvious. It is not too difficult to see that people are much more likely to be happy, settled and economically productive if they feel comfortable and know that their family is secure and able to join them, than if they are worried about other family members left behind in dreadful conditions, in camps or under threat. One asylum seeker described that process as a second torture to be endured.
The United Nations high commissioner for refugees has declared her support for family reunion. She said:
while the family remains the basic unit of society, it is also the greatest casualty in any social upheaval. For millions of refugees who have been forced to abandon their homes, their belongings and their country, the family is all that is left.
She went on to appeal for all states to be more generous in allowing admissions based on family reunion.
I have some basic questions for the Minister. Why is there not a right to family reunion when people are granted exceptional leave to remain? Why are there bureaucratic delays? Why is it not possible to make decisions on family reunion within a reasonable time scale—say, six months? Why is the existence of wider family units not recognised? Why is poverty and the inability to give clear proof that one does not need recourse to public funds a barrier to the simple reunion of a family? Why is there not more sympathetic use of Home Office discretion?
It is commonly argued that exceptional leave to remain is a privilege; it does not mean that someone is settled in this country, and therefore no decision about family reunions should be reached until that point is reached. However, those who have been granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom entered the country in the hope of staying here. If the political situations in their countries of origin change, they may wish to return, but it seems highly unlikely that they would not take their families with them.
Very few people who are granted exceptional leave to remain in the UK have that leave withdrawn. In answer to my parliamentary question, the Minister estimated that leave was withdrawn about 15 times per year, and in most cases it was withdrawn at the end of the first year. There is little evidence to suggest that the people who are granted exceptional leave do not wish to settle in this country.
I gave one example at the beginning of my speech, and I will conclude by examining several other cases which illustrate the current situation. An Iraqi man arrived in the United Kingdom in 1989 and sought asylum. Three years later, he was granted exceptional leave to remain in this country. He appealed against that decision and three years later, in 1995—six years after his arrival—his appeal was heard and he was granted asylum. He was therefore entitled


to family reunion, but during that six-year delay two of his children had turned 18 and were no longer regarded as family under the law. That man is devastated at the thought that he will not see his children again.
A Somali woman arrived in the United Kingdom in 1990. In 1993 she was granted entry visas for her six children, who were in a refugee camp in Ethiopia. Four of her children came to the United Kingdom, but the other two were too sick to travel at that time. They now want to come to the UK, but they have been told that they must have DNA tests before they will be allowed entry—even though they were granted entry visas in 1993. I could cite case after case of families who are being kept apart in similar circumstances.
At the beginning of my speech I cited the case of children who have been left unaccompanied in this country because their parents are unable to join them. Family members have been separated because they have applied for asylum in different European countries. There is no simple mechanism for allowing those people to be reunited or for dealing with their applications together, which would seem to be the obvious way of addressing the problem.
I mentioned earlier the case of a Sri Lankan man who had been tortured. In his application for asylum, he wrote: 
I chose this country to seek asylum because I felt that Britain promotes and protects the human rights of the oppressed people and would consider my case sympathetically and grant me refugee status.
I very much doubt whether he would say that now, four years later, and he certainly will not say it again until his family are allowed to join him.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I welcome very much the spirit in which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has presented his arguments. He is extremely concerned about the issue, which I know affects many of his constituents. If I do not agree with all of his requests, it is not because I do not respect the spirit of his arguments.
The Government's policy for family reunion in asylum cases seeks to find a balance between our wider aim of keeping a firm downward pressure on immigration and our wish to avoid the unnecessary separation of families. That balance informs our policy and it encapsulates the reasons why we cannot go as far as the hon. Gentleman would like. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand also that I cannot comment on the individual cases that he has raised, which are familiar to me.
The Government fully accept and comply with the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. All asylum claims are carefully considered by specially trained staff and, under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, all those refused asylum have an appeal to an independent adjudicator before they can be removed. However, the United Kingdom has no responsibility to encourage or to assist would-be asylum seekers around the world to come here. Such a commitment is not part of our international obligations and could not in practice be honoured, given the powerful migration pressures in the world today.
The asylum statistics provide striking confirmation of those pressures. The House will recall the dramatic surge in 1991, when the number of asylum applications in the

United Kingdom rose from 8,000 to 45,000 in a single year. The numbers fell back over the next two years but are now rising again sharply. The figure for 1994—33,000—was 40 per cent. up on the previous year and the numbers are currently still rising.
I have noticed a tendency in some quarters for the terms "asylum seeker" and "refugee" to be used interchangeably. This is deeply misleading. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of applicants do not have valid claims under the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention. Over the past three years, on average only about 5 per cent. of asylum claims have been accepted by the Home Office, and about 80 per cent. of the decisions have been outright refusals.
The great majority of Home Office decisions are subsequently upheld by the independent adjudicators. In those circumstances, policy must be directed towards expedited decision—taking and minimising the factors that might attract people to the United Kingdom to make unfounded claims here. Such a policy is needed not only in the interests of immigration control but in fairness to genuine refugees, some of whom were described by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who have to wait longer for recognition of their status because of the large number of groundless claims that have to be processed.
That is why the Government introduced the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. The purpose of the Act was to enable unfounded applications to be determined quickly and with finality while continuing to protect genuine refugees. The Act allowed us to bring down decision times for new claims from more than 18 months to around seven months. Fingerprinting has allowed us to cut out the problem of multiple applications by people seeking to claim benefit in more than one identity. More efficient procedures introduced after the Act now allow us to take more than 2,000 decisions every month.
Last year's sharp rise in asylum claims has, however, outpaced the improvements in output and productivity. Decision times have started rising, and the appeal system is failing to keep pace with its intake. If we fail to respond robustly, growing delays could themselves help to attract unmeritorious asylum claims to the disbenefit of, among others, genuine asylum applicants.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary therefore announced two further important initiatives last month. First, we are now making wider use, in appropriate cases, of the power under the 1993 Act to curtail existing leave when refusing an asylum claim. Where leave is curtailed, people who claim asylum after admission on some other basis have only one right of appeal if the claim is refused, instead of two.
Secondly, we intend to invest £l37 million over the next three years in the machinery for determining asylum claims and appeals. Those resources will enable many more claims to be finally determined. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, it is too early to say how the 150 extra staff will be deployed. No decision has yet been taken. By the end of the three years, we expect to have saved well over £100 million, which would have otherwise been spent in Department of Social Security income support and other benefits for failed asylum seekers.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor are also examining a study of asylum appeal procedures by the consultants KPMG Peat Marwick. It is clear from the consultants' report, a copy


of which has been placed in the Library, that there is scope for further action to reduce delays and adjournments. The combined effect of those measures will be to speed up decisions and appeals and bring backlogs under control, but we are continuing to monitor the position closely, and will not hesitate to take further measures if the need arises.
Against that background, our policy on family reunion draws a clear distinction between asylum seekers whose applications are under consideration, people to whom we have granted refugee status and people who do not qualify for asylum but to whom exceptional leave has been granted.
Taking asylum seekers first, I have to tell the House that I see no merit in the argument that those who have applied for asylum should be entitled to bring their families to this country while their claim is being considered. Supporters of that view have not appreciated, and have failed in my view, to confront the true scale and nature of the asylum pressures that we face. Such a policy would be wholly inconsistent with the fact that the great majority of applications are unfounded, would represent a major new incentive to seek asylum in this country, and would thus run directly counter to the Government's wider asylum policy.
The immigration rules already provide that, where the asylum seeker is accompanied by a spouse and minor children, they may be included in the asylum claim. In such circumstances, they can, of course, remain with the principal applicant while the claim is considered. I do not see a case for any extension of that position.
The position is entirely different where an asylum seeker has been recognised as a refugee. The principle of family unity for refugees is contained in the final Act of the instrument that established the 1951 convention. Although family reunion does not form part of the convention itself, the United Kingdom will normally permit the reunion of the immediate family, as a concession outside the immigration rules.
Under that policy, people recognised as refugees immediately become eligible to be joined by their spouse and minor children, provided that they had lived together as a family before the sponsor travelled to seek asylum. Families of refugees are not required to satisfy the maintenance and accommodation requirements that normally apply when families seek admission to join a sponsor here. Other dependent relatives may be admitted if there are compelling compassionate circumstances.
The third category is those who are not at risk of persecution in the terms of the 1951 convention, and do not therefore qualify for asylum, but to whom exceptional leave is granted on other compelling humanitarian grounds. Exceptional leave, which is granted in about 15 per cent. of cases, is a discretionary and temporary status. It is not until a person has been in this country for a substantial period that the likelihood of his or her having a long-term future here can be assessed. We are therefore not normally prepared to entertain an application for family reunion until four years have elapsed. At that point, we expect applicants to meet the normal requirements of the immigration rules, including the requirement that relatives coming to join the sponsor should be maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds.
I have listened carefully to the case made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow in favour of relaxing the four-year requirement. I have received similar

representations in recent months from the Refugee Council and other bodies. I acknowledge that ours is a strict policy and that hard cases may arise. We are prepared to consider family reunion earlier than four years if there are compelling compassionate circumstances.
It is, however, important to emphasise that exceptional leave is a status normally granted to people to whom we have no legal or international obligation, and who often have no particular claims on this country. I therefore remain to be convinced that any change in our current policy would be justified.
At a time when, as I have already mentioned, asylum pressures on the United Kingdom are growing, it would send entirely the wrong signals. It would make the United Kingdom a more attractive destination for migrants, arid those to whom we granted exceptional leave would have less incentive to return home when conditions improve. Nor can I see any reason to treat the relatives of an asylum seeker or someone with exceptional leave who have managed to travel to another European Union country any more favourably than those remaining in their home country.
The hon. Member has raised the question of unaccompanied children. The immigration rules make special provision for unaccompanied children seeking asylum, emphasising that particular priority arid care should be given to their cases, with close attention to the welfare of the child at all times, and that children should be interviewed only if sufficient information cannot be obtained by other means. Staff considering asylum applications from unaccompanied children receive special training from the Refugee Council.
Even where children are not recognised as refugees, their cases are considered sympathetically and we would return them to their own country only where we were satisfied that there were satisfactory care arrangements there. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is routinely informed of all refusal decisions and may become a party to an appeal.
The information available suggests that the number of unaccompanied children seeking asylum is growing. Not all of them will be genuine refugees. Some will have been sent by their families for economic or other reasons. In those cases, it is right for the family to accept responsibility for the children, who will be reunited with their families abroad where possible.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, although I am not able to offer him the comfort that he would like, the changes that we announced recently will have the great beneficial effect of speeding up the process of dealing with asylum applications. That speeding up will have the greatest possible benefit, particularly for genuine asylum seekers about whom the hon. Gentleman is most concerned.
I also remind the hon. Gentleman that, in respect of those on exceptional leave to remain, we are prepared to consider cases with discretion. With those words, I hope that—

The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.